Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Twelfth sitting)

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Wera Hobhouse, Dr Rupa Huq, † Christine Jardine, Derek Twigg

† Amos, Gideon (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)

† Caliskan, Nesil (Barking) (Lab)

† Chowns, Ellie (North Herefordshire) (Green)

† Cocking, Lewis (Broxbourne) (Con)

† Dickson, Jim (Dartford) (Lab)

Ferguson, Mark (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)

† Glover, Olly (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)

† Grady, John (Glasgow East) (Lab)

† Holmes, Paul (Hamble Valley) (Con)

Kitchen, Gen (Wellingborough and Rushden) (Lab)

† Martin, Amanda (Portsmouth North) (Lab)

† Murphy, Luke (Basingstoke) (Lab)

† Pennycook, Matthew (Minister for Housing and Planning)

† Pitcher, Lee (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)

† Shanks, Michael (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero)

† Simmonds, David (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)

† Taylor, Rachel (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)

Dominic Stockbridge, Simon Armitage, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

14:00:00

Following a request, Members may now remove jackets if they are finding it oppressively warm. We now come to the new clauses. I remind Committee members that Government new clauses are considered first, with other new clauses then being considered in numerical order, as listed on the amendment paper and the selection and grouping paper. Some new clauses may be grouped with others for the purpose of debate and some new clauses have already been debated during the Committee’s consideration of the Bill. When a new clause has previously been debated, it cannot be debated further when it is reached; Committee members should let me know if they wish to press it to a vote. We start with Government new clause 39, which was debated with clause 44. New Clause 39 Surcharge on planning fees “In the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after section 303ZZA (inserted by section 44) insert— ‘303ZZB Surcharge on planning fees (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid— (a) to a local planning authority in England under section 303(1) or (2), (b) to the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(1ZA), or (c) to the Secretary of State under section 303(1A), (2), (3) or (4A). (2) Where regulations under subsection (1) provide for a surcharge to be imposed on a fee or charge paid to a person other than the Secretary of State, that person must pay to the Secretary of State the amount they receive from any surcharges— (a) subject to such deductions, and (b) at the times and in the manner, as set out in regulations under subsection (1). (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may— (a) specify the level of the surcharge as a percentage of the level of a fee or charge; (b) make different provision for different purposes, including setting different levels of surcharge for different fees, charges, cases or circumstances. (4) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that where the level of the fee or charge has been set by— (a) a local planning authority under section 303(5A), or (b) the Mayor of London or a specified person under section 303(5B), the surcharge may be set as a percentage of the fee or charge that would be payable had the level of the fee or charge not been so set. (5) The Secretary of State must list in regulations the persons whose relevant costs the surcharge is intended to cover (“listed persons”). (6) In setting the level of the surcharge, the Secretary of State must have regard to the relevant costs of the listed persons, and must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the surcharge does not exceed the relevant costs of the listed persons. (7) In subsections (5) and (6), “relevant costs” means the costs of providing advice, information or assistance (including the provision of a response to a consultation) in connection with— (a) applications, (b) proposed applications, or (c) proposals for a permission, approval or consent, that are made under or for the purposes of the planning Acts and that relate to land in England. (8) Regulations under subsection (1) may set the surcharge at a level that exceeds the costs of listed persons of providing advice, information or assistance in connection with the application, proposed application or proposal in respect of which the surcharge is imposed. (9) Paragraphs (a) to (f) of section 303(5) apply to regulations under this section as they apply to regulations under subsection (1), save that references to a fee or charge are to be read as references to the surcharge. (10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’”.—(Matthew Pennycook.) The effect of this new clause is to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations imposing a surcharge on planning application fees. The surcharge must, if imposed, be set by reference to the costs incurred by bodies, listed in regulations, which provide advice in the planning application process, including by way of consultation responses. Brought up, read the First time and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 42 Planning Act 2008: right to enter and survey land “(1) Section 53 of the Planning Act 2008 (rights of entry) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (7). (2) In subsection (1), for “Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State” substitute “An authorised person”. (3) After subsection (1A) insert— “(1B) In subsection (1) “authorised person” means a person who is authorised in writing to exercise the power in that subsection on behalf of— (a) a person who has made an application for an order granting development consent that has been accepted by the Secretary of State, (b) a person who proposes to make an application for an order granting development consent, or (c) a person who has been granted the benefit of an order granting development consent of a kind specified in subsection (1)(c).” (4) Omit subsection (2). (5) In subsection (4)— (a) in the words before paragraph (a), for “authorised under subsection (1) to enter any land” substitute “acting in the exercise of a power of entry onto any land conferred under subsection (1)”; (b) insert “and” at the end of paragraph (a); (c) in paragraph (b)— (i) for “any land which is occupied” substitute “the land”; (ii) for “the occupier” substitute “every owner or occupier of the land”; (d) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b); (e) omit paragraph (c). (6) After subsection (4) insert— “(4A) Notice given in accordance with subsection (4)(b) must include prescribed information. (4B) A justice of the peace may issue a warrant authorising a person to use force in the exercise of the power conferred under subsection (1) if satisfied— (a) that another person has prevented or is likely to prevent the exercise of that power, and (b) that it is reasonable to use force in the exercise of that power. (4C) The force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to that which is reasonably necessary. (4D) A warrant authorising the person to use force must specify the number of occasions on which the person can rely on the warrant when entering land. (4E) The number specified must be the number which the justice of the peace considers appropriate to achieve the purpose for which the entry is required. (4F) Any evidence in proceedings for a warrant must be given on oath.” (7) After subsection (8) insert— “(8A) Section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (costs) applies to the determination of a question referred under subsection (8) as it applies to the determination of a question under section 1 of that Act, but as if references to the acquiring authority were references to the person from whom compensation is claimed.” (8) In paragraph 7 of Schedule 12 to the Planning Act 2008 (application of Act to Scotland: modifications of section 53)— (a) after paragraph (za) insert— “(zb) in subsections (4B) and (4E), the references to a justice of the peace were references to a sheriff or summary sheriff,”; (b) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (b); (c) after paragraph (b) insert— “(ba) in subsection (8A)— (i) the reference to section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to sections 9 and 11 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and (ii) the reference to section 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 were a reference to section 8 of the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963, and”. (9) In the Localism Act 2011— (a) omit section 136(4); (b) in paragraph 12 of Schedule 13— (i) in sub-paragraph (2), omit “and (2)”; (ii) omit sub-paragraph (3).”.—(Matthew Pennycook.) This clause amends existing rights to enter and survey land in connection with development consent orders, to: (1) remove the requirement for authorisation by the Secretary of State before entry, and (2) allow the use of force if authorised by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. At present, we know that it is taking too long for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects to prepare applications for development consent that are robust and ready for examination. Part of the reason is the time it is taking for promoters to gain access to the land to carry out surveys to understand its condition and status, to inform their assessments of the project’s environmental impact. The Government remain committed to ensuring that applicants and landowners reach agreements privately on when land can be accessed and on any compensation necessary as a result of activities carried out by the promoter when surveying the land. However, we appreciate that such agreements cannot be made in every circumstance. While that is regrettable, it should not come at the cost of delaying the delivery of the critical infrastructure that this country needs. In this new clause, I am making changes to provide a more efficient route to accessing land to carry out surveys for promoters of nationally significant infrastructure projects. These align with rights already available to, and often used by, DCO applicants under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. The changes will give authorisation to promoters to access land on the premise that sufficient notice is given to landowners and occupiers, with regulations to be made requiring the specific information to be contained in that notice. Should access be unreasonably prevented, promoters will be able to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to use force to enter the land and carry out the surveys required. The use of force that may be authorised by a warrant is limited to what is reasonably necessary to exercise the power conferred by the provision. The new clause is an important step change in speeding up the preparation stage of applications for development consent and ultimately the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects. It will come into force when the Secretary of State introduces the associated regulations.

I have a couple of queries. I understand the spirit of the proposal; when I was involved in this part of the planning regime, almost no applications came forward for the power to enter land because of the elaborate process involved, so I very much understand and welcome the spirit in which these changes are made. However, I ask the Minister to consider whether there is a risk of going from one extreme to the other. The new clause would grant any person who proposes to make an application the power to enter land. We would be interested to know what provisos will sit around that. Can anybody simply say, “I am going to make an application” and therefore get an order to enter land? Do the Government envisage guidance or regulations on that aspect? Generally, however, we support the clause.

I appreciate the reasons why the hon. Gentleman has raised those points; I have a couple of points that may provide him with reassurance. The provisions in section 53 will allow authorised persons to carry out surveys required in connection with the preparation of environmental assessments and habitats assessments. The entry powers being sought are for a very specific purpose. As I said, the Government strongly advocate that applicants and landowners should first reach agreements privately when access is required. The problem that the new clause is trying to address is that that does not always happen. We want to ensure that, when necessary, there is a mechanism for applicants to be able to access land and carry out the requisite surveys. When exercising the power conferred under section 53(1), authorised persons are required to provide the owner or occupier of the land with at least 14 days’ notice of their entry. Regulations, to come forward in due course, will specify certain information that the notice will contain. That information will include details of the negotiations that have been held regarding the entry, full details of the surveys to be undertaken and the rationale for undertaking them, and evidence that the surveys are required in connection with the NSIP in question. To the points made by the hon. Gentleman, I say that access is required for specific purposes, notice will have to be given and regulations will be forthcoming that provide further details. In general terms, however, we absolutely want in the first instance for applicants and landowners to be able to reach agreements. We think that this power is required and proportionate for circumstances when that does not take place.

Those provisos on the regulations are helpful. They are important because to go on to someone else’s land without their agreement initially is a significant power. We agree with the Minister that it should be used only as a last resort, once all the alternatives set out in the guidance have been explored. Question put and agreed to. New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 43 Changes to, and revocation of, development consent orders “(1) Schedule 6 to the Planning Act 2008 (changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent) is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (4). (2) Omit paragraph 2 (non-material changes to orders granting development consent) and the italic heading before it. (3) In paragraph 3 (changes to, and revocation of, orders)— (a) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), omit “or paragraph 2 of this Schedule”; (b) in sub-paragraph (5A), after “should” insert “, when considered in conjunction with any other changes already made,”. (4) In paragraph 4 (changes to, and revocation of, orders: supplementary), after sub-paragraph (6) insert— “(6A) If a development consent order is changed in exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the development consent order continues in force. (6B) If a development consent order is changed or revoked in the exercise of the power conferred by paragraph 3(1), the change or revocation takes effect on— (a) the date on which the order making the change or revocation is made, or (b) if the order specifies a date on which the change or revocation takes effect, the specified date. (6C) Except in a case within sub-paragraph (7), the Secretary of State must publish an order making a change to, or revoking, a development consent order in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.” (5) In section 118 of the Planning Act 2008 (legal challenges)— (a) omit subsection (5); (b) in subsection (6)(b), for “notice of the change or revocation” to the end substitute “the order making the change or revocation is published.” (6) In consequence of the amendment in subsection (2), omit— (a) paragraph 4(6)(a) of Schedule 8 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, (b) paragraph 72(4) to (7) of Schedule 13 to the Localism Act 2011, (c) section 28(2) of the Infrastructure Act 2015, (d) paragraph 8(3)(b)(i) of Schedule 7 to the Wales Act 2017, and (e) section 128 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.” —(Matthew Pennycook.) This clause amends the Planning Act 2008 concerning changes to, and revocation of, orders granting development consent. The key change is to repeal the procedure for making non-material changes that is currently in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to that Act. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 43 will make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested. That will allow greater flexibility than the existing binary process. The current change process takes too long to deliver on the ground, and is putting developers off requesting changes that have the potential to improve design, reduce adverse environmental impacts, better meet community interests, reduce costs and speed up delivery. The removal of the distinction between material and non-material changes will allow us to design a more proportionate single process for changes, the detail of which will be set out in new regulations. The new system will be commenced by the implementation of updated regulations. As such, there will be no impact on existing DCOs that are considering change applications in the immediate term, while the Government develop the new process alongside industry stakeholders. Transitional provisions will be included in the revised regulations to ensure an efficient transition to the new system. The measure will support the Government’s growth and clean energy missions, giving certainty to developers, reducing cost risk and supporting faster decisions. It will ensure that we can deliver the critical infrastructure the country needs in the best form. I am grateful to the expert input provided by stakeholders through feedback on the limitations of the existing change process. Officials in my Department will continue to work with stakeholders and practitioners to refine the new process, and to ensure it delivers efficiencies and better supports the delivery of infrastructure across the country. Question put and agreed to. New clause 42 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 44 Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements “Omit the following sections of the Planning Act 2008— (a) section 42 (duty to consult); (b) section 43 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b)); (c) section 44 (categories for purposes of section 42(1)(d)); (d) section 45 (timetable for consultation under section 42); (e) section 47 (duty to consult local community); (f) section 49 (duty to take account of responses to consultation and publicity).”—(Matthew Pennycook.) This new clause omits sections of the Planning Act 2008 which currently require a person who proposes to apply for development consent to consult particular people about the proposed application, including prescribed bodies, local authorities, the local community and persons with an interest in the land in question. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

29|0|9|5|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

New Clause 45

Applications for development consent: changes related to section (Applications for development consent: removal of certain pre-application requirements)

“(1) The Planning Act 2008 is amended as set out in subsections (2) to (9).

(2) In section 37 (applications for orders granting development consent)—

(a) in subsection (3)—

(i) insert ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (b);

(ii) omit paragraph (c) (together with the final ‘and’);

(b) omit subsections (7) and (8).

(3) In section 39 (register of applications), in subsection (4)—

(a) insert ‘and’ at the end of paragraph (a);

(b) omit paragraph (b) (together with the final ‘and’).

(4) In section 41 (Chapter applies before application is made), in subsection (1), at the end insert ‘(and “applicants” is to be construed accordingly)’.

(5) In section 46 (duty to notify Secretary of State of proposed application)—

(a) for subsection (1) substitute—

‘(1) The applicant must supply to the Secretary of State—

(a) the information specified in subsection (1C), and

(b) such further information as may be prescribed.

(1A) The applicant must supply to each host local authority—

(a) the information specified in subsection (1C), and

(b) such further information as may be prescribed.

(1B) In any case where the proposed development would affect, or would be likely to affect, any of the areas specified in subsection (5), the applicant must supply to the Marine Management Organisation—

(a) the information specified in subsection (1C), and

(b) such further information as may be prescribed.

(1C) The information referred to in subsections (1)(a), (1A)(a) and (1B)(a) is as follows—

(a) the applicant’s name and address,

(b) a statement that the applicant intends to apply for an order granting development consent,

(c) a statement about why development consent is required for the proposed development, specifying the relevant provision of Part 3 (or referring to a direction that has been given under section 35), and

(d) a summary of the proposed application, specifying the location or route of the proposed development.’;

(b) omit subsection (2);

(c) after subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) A local authority is a “host local authority” if the land is in the authority’s area.

(4) In this section “local authority” means—

(a) a county council, or district council, in England;

(b) a London borough council;

(c) the Common Council of the City of London;

(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(e) a county council, or county borough council, in Wales;

(f) a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994;

(g) a National Park authority;

(h) the Broads Authority.

(5) The areas referred to in subsection (1B) are—

(a) waters in or adjacent to England up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea;

(b) an exclusive economic zone, except any part of an exclusive economic zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;

(c) a Renewable Energy Zone, except any part of a Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions;

(d) an area designated under section 1(7) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, except any part of that area which is within a part of an exclusive economic zone or Renewable Energy Zone in relation to which the Scottish Ministers have functions.’;

(d) in the heading, after ‘Secretary of State’ insert ‘and others’.

(6) In section 48 (duty to publicise), omit subsection (2).

(7) For section 50 substitute—

(1) Applicants must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to assist them in complying with section 48.

(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to assist applicants, setting out what the Secretary of State considers to be best practice in terms of the steps they might take in relation to a proposed application in readiness for submitting an actual application.’

(8) In section 52 (obtaining information about interests in land), in subsection (1), for ‘provisions of, or made under, Chapter 2 of this Part or’ substitute ‘regulations made under section 37 or with provisions of, or made under,’.

(9) In Schedule 12 (application of Act to Scotland: modifications), omit paragraph 5.

(10) In the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/572)—

(a) in regulation 3(1), in the definition of ‘the consultation bodies’—

(i) in paragraph (a), omit ‘prescribed under section 42(1)(a) (duty to consult) and’;

(ii) in paragraph (a), for ‘column 2’ substitute ‘column 3’;

(iii) at the end of paragraph (a) insert ‘(reading references to applications as references to proposed applications, where the context requires)’;

(iv) in paragraph (b), for ‘section 43 (local authorities for purposes of section 42(1)(b))’ substitute ‘section 56A (local authorities for purposes of sections 56(2)(b) and 60(2)(a))’;

(b) in regulation 8(1), for ‘carrying out consultation under section 42 (duty to consult)’ substitute ‘publicising the proposed application under section 48,’;

(c) omit regulation 12 (consultation statement requirements).

(11) Omit—

(a) section 23(2), (3) and (4) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

(b) the following provisions of the Localism Act 2011—

(i) section 133;

(ii) section 134;

(iii) section 135(8);

(iv) paragraphs 8(2) and 9 of Schedule 13.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

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

30|0|9|5|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly agreed to.||0|0

New Clause 65

Transfer schemes in connection with regulations under section 74(1)

“(1) The Secretary of State may, in connection with regulations made under section 74(1), make one or more schemes for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities (a ‘transfer scheme’) between—

(a) Natural England and a designated person;

(b) two or more designated persons.

(2) The things that may be transferred under a transfer scheme include—

(a) property, rights and liabilities that could not otherwise be transferred;

(b) property acquired, and rights and liabilities arising, after the making of the scheme;

(c) criminal liabilities.

(3) A transfer scheme may—

(a) create rights, or impose liabilities, in relation to property or rights transferred;

(b) make provision about the continuing effect of things done by, on behalf of or in relation to the transferor in respect of anything transferred;

(c) make provision about the continuation of things (including legal proceedings) in the process of being done by, on behalf of or in relation to the transferor in respect of anything transferred;

(d) make provision for references to the transferor in an instrument or other document in respect of anything transferred to be treated as references to the transferee;

(e) make provision for the shared ownership or use of property;

(f) make provision which is the same as or similar to the TUPE regulations;

(g) make other consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision.

(4) A transfer scheme may provide—

(a) for modifications by agreement;

(b) for modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme came into effect.

(5) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to rights and liabilities include rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment;

(b) references to the transfer of property include the grant of a lease.

(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)(a)—

(a) an individual who holds employment in the civil service of the State is to be treated as employed by virtue of a contract of employment, and

(b) the terms of the individual’s employment in the civil service of the State are to be treated as constituting the terms of the contract of employment.

(7) In this section—

‘designated person’ means a person designated in regulations made under section 74(1);

‘the TUPE regulations’ means the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/246).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 66

Compulsory purchase powers: Secretary of State

“(1) The Secretary of State may acquire land compulsorily if the Secretary of State requires the land for revoked EDP purposes.

(2) In subsection (1) “revoked EDP purposes” means purposes connected with the taking by the Secretary of State or another public authority of—

(a) a conservation measure included in a revoked EDP or a revoked part of an EDP (see section 59(6) and (8)(a)), or

(b) any other measure to improve the conservation status of an environmental feature identified in a revoked EDP or a revoked part of an EDP (see section 59(6) and (8)(b)).

(3) The provisions of section 72(3) to (9) and Schedule 5 apply in relation to (or to matters connected with) the compulsory acquisition of land by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) as they apply in relation to (or to matters connected with) the compulsory acquisition of land by Natural England under section 72(1).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

14:15:00

New Clause 67

Power to enter and survey or investigate land

“(1) A person authorised by Natural England may enter and survey or investigate any land in connection with the exercise by Natural England of any function conferred by or under this Part.

(2) The power conferred by subsection (1)—

(a) must be exercised at a reasonable hour;

(b) may not be exercised in relation to a private dwelling.

(3) A person authorised under subsection (1) may not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless notice in writing of the intended entry has been given to the occupier as follows—

(a) if the land is held by a statutory undertaker, the notice must be at least 21 days;

(b) in any other case, the notice must be at least 24 hours.

(4) But notice under subsection (3) is not required to be given for second and subsequent entries onto the same land to carry out the same kind of surveying or investigating.

(5) A person may not be authorised under subsection (1) to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal by Natural England to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016).

(6) In this section, “statutory undertaker” means a person who is, or who is deemed to be, a statutory undertaker for the purposes of any provision of Part 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 68

Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land

“(1) This section applies if a justice of the peace is satisfied, on an application by an authorised person giving written information on oath—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for entering and surveying or investigating any land except a private dwelling in connection with the exercise by Natural England of any function conferred by or under this Part, and

(b) that—

(i) an authorised person has given notice as set out in section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land)(3) but has been denied admission to the land or received no reply to a request for admission within a reasonable period,

(ii) admission to the land is unlikely to be granted unless a warrant is produced, or

(iii) it is necessary to confer a power to use force (if necessary) to achieve the purpose for which entry is sought.

(2) The justice of the peace may issue a warrant conferring a power on any authorised person to enter and survey or investigate the land, if necessary using reasonable force.

(3) Subject to subsection (8), a warrant may be executed in relation to land which is occupied only if notice in writing of the intended entry has been given to the occupier as follows—

(a) if the land is held by a statutory undertaker, the notice must be at least 21 days;

(b) in any other case, the notice must be at least 24 hours.

(4) That notice must—

(a) be accompanied by a copy of the warrant, or

(b) if no warrant has yet been issued, state that Natural England intends to apply for a warrant.

(5) A person executing or seeking to execute a warrant must produce a copy of the warrant to the occupier of the land (if present).

(6) A warrant must specify the number of occasions on which the warrant confers power to enter and survey or investigate the land.

(7) The number specified must be the number which the justice of the peace considers appropriate to achieve the purpose for which the warrant is required.

(8) Where a warrant authorises entry onto the same land on more than one occasion, notice under subsection (3) is not required to be given for second and subsequent entries to carry out the same kind of surveying or investigating.

(9) Execution of a warrant must be—

(a) within the period of three months starting with the date of its issue;

(b) at a reasonable hour.

(10) A warrant under this section may not authorise a person to enter and survey or value land in connection with a proposal by Natural England to acquire an interest in or a right over land (but see section 172 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016).

(11) In this section—

“authorised person” means a person authorised by Natural England under section (Power to enter and surveyor investigate land);

“statutory undertaker” has the meaning given by that section.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 69

Powers of entry: further provision

“(1) In this section and in sections (Powers of entry: compensation) and (Powers of entry: offences), “power of entry” means a power to enter and survey or investigate land conferred by section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land) or by a warrant under section (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land).

(2) An authorisation of a person by Natural England to exercise a power of entry must be in writing.

(3) When exercising or seeking to exercise a power of entry, a person must if asked produce evidence of the person’s authority and state the purpose of the intended entry.

(4) A person exercising a power of entry may be accompanied by any person, and bring anything, required for any purpose for which the power of entry is being exercised.

(5) If a person exercising a power of entry has reasonable cause to expect any obstruction in exercising the power, the person may be accompanied by a constable.

(6) If in the exercise of a power of entry a person enters land which is unoccupied or from which the occupier is absent, the person must leave it as effectively secured against unauthorised entry as the person found it.

(7) A person exercising a power of entry must not carry out any surveying or investigating of a kind specified in subsection (8) unless details of what is proposed were included in—

(a) the notice under section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land)(3) or (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land)(3), or

(b) if the land is unoccupied, a notice given to every owner of the land that the person is able to identify after taking reasonable steps to do so.

(8) The kinds of surveying or investigating referred to in subsection (7) are—

(a) carrying out an aerial survey;

(b) leaving apparatus on the land in question;

(c) taking samples of—

(i) water,

(ii) air,

(iii) soil or rock,

(iv) flora,

(v) blood, tissue or other biological material of fauna (living or dead), or

(vi) any non-living thing present as a result of human action;

(d) searching for flora or fauna;

(e) carrying out exploratory works for purposes connected with the taking of a conservation measure.

(9) A written authorisation from the Secretary of State is required before a person exercises a power of entry if—

(a) the land in question is held by a statutory undertaker, and

(b) the undertaker objects to anything proposed to be done in exercise of the power of entry on the ground that doing it would be seriously detrimental to the undertaker carrying on its undertaking.

(10) Any such objection must be in writing and must be provided to Natural England within the period for which notice is given in relation to the intended entry under section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land)(3) or (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land)(3).

(11) In this section, “statutory undertaker” has the meaning given by section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land).” —(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 70

Powers of entry: compensation

“(1) If damage is caused to land or other property in the exercise of a power of entry, a person suffering the damage may recover compensation from Natural England.

(2) Notice required to be given under section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land)(3), (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land)(3) or (Powers of entry: further provision)(7)(b) must include a statement about the right to such compensation.

(3) Any question of disputed compensation under subsection (1) is to be referred to and determined by the Upper Tribunal.

(4) Section 4 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 (costs) applies to the determination of a question referred under subsection (3) as it applies to the determination of a question under section 1 of that Act, but as if references to the acquiring authority were references to Natural England.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 71

Powers of entry: offences

“(1) A person who intentionally obstructs a person acting in exercise of a power of entry commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(3) A person commits an offence if the person discloses confidential information, obtained in the exercise of a power of entry, for purposes other than those for which the power was exercised.

(4) A person who commits an offence under subsection (3) is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine, or both.

(5) In subsection (3) “confidential information” means information—

(a) which constitutes a trade secret, or

(b) the disclosure of which would or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person.” —(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 72

Revoked EDP: powers of Secretary of State etc to enter and survey or investigate land

“(1) A person authorised by a relevant authority may enter and survey or investigate any land for revoked EDP purposes.

(2) Subsection (3) applies if a justice of the peace is satisfied, on an application by a person authorised by a relevant authority giving written information on oath—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for entering and surveying or investigating any land except a private dwelling for revoked EDP purposes, and

(b) that a condition specified in section (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land)(1)(b)(i), (ii) or (iii) is met (reading the reference to an authorised person in subsection (1)(b)(i) as a reference to a person authorised by the relevant authority).

(3) The justice of the peace may issue a warrant conferring a power on any person authorised by the relevant authority to enter and survey or investigate the land, if necessary using reasonable force.

(4) The following provisions apply in relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by or under subsections (1) and (3) on a person authorised by the relevant authority as they apply in relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by or under sections (Power to enter and survey or investigate land) and (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land) on a person authorised by Natural England, reading references in the applied provisions to Natural England as references to the relevant authority—

(a) section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land)(2) to (6) (notice requirement etc);

(b) section (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land)(3) to (10) and the definition of “statutory undertaker” in subsection (11) of that section (requirements for execution of warrant);

(c) section (Powers of entry: further provision)(1) to (8) (further provision about powers of entry);

(d) section (Powers of entry: compensation) (compensation);

(e) section (Powers of entry: offences) (offences).

(5) Subsections (9) to (11) of section (Powers of entry: further provision) (land held by statutory undertakers) apply in relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by or under subsections (1) and (3) by a person authorised by an authority within subsection (7)(b)as they apply in relation to the exercise of the powers conferred by or under sections (Power to enter and survey or investigate land) and (Warrant to enter and survey or investigate land) on a person authorised by Natural England, reading the reference in the applied provisions to Natural England as a reference to the authority within subsection (7)(b).

(6) In this section “revoked EDP purposes” means purposes connected with—

(a) the taking of a conservation measure included in a revoked EDP or a revoked part of an EDP (see section 59(6) and (8)(a)), or

(b) the taking of any other measure to improve the conservation status of an environmental feature identified in a revoked EDP or a revoked part of an EDP (see section 59(6) and (8)(b)).

(7) In this section “relevant authority” means—

(a) the Secretary of State, or

(b) a public authority to which the Secretary of State has given a direction under section 59(8)(a) or (b).” —(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 73

Application to the Crown

“(1) This Part binds the Crown, subject as follows.

(2) Regulations under this Part may (but need not) make provision binding the Crown; but—

(a) no contravention of any provision of regulations under this Part is to make the Crown criminally liable;

(b) regulations under this Part may not confer a power of entry over Crown land unless the regulations require a person who may exercise such a power to obtain the permission of the appropriate authority before the power is exercised.

(3) Before implementing a conservation measure under an EDP that is to be taken on or may otherwise affect Crown land, Natural England must obtain the permission of the appropriate authority.

(4) The power conferred by section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land) applies in relation to Crown land, but only if the person seeking entry to the land has the permission of—

(a) a person appearing to the person seeking entry to be entitled to give it, or

(b) the appropriate authority.

(5) The power conferred by section (Revoked EDP: powers of Secretary of State etc to enter and survey or investigate land) (1) applies in relation to Crown land, but, except where subsection (6) applies, only if the person seeking entry to the land has the permission of—

(a) a person appearing to the person seeking entry to be entitled to give it, or

(b) the appropriate authority.

(6) This subsection applies if—

(a) the person seeking to exercise that power is a person authorised by the Secretary of State, and

(b) the appropriate authority is a government department or the Secretary of State.

(7) If the appropriate authority is the occupier of the land, section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land) (3) (notice requirement) does not apply in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by section (Power to enter and survey or investigate land) or (Revoked EDP: powers of Secretary of State etc to enter and survey or investigate land) (1).

(8) The following provisions do not apply in relation to anything done by virtue of subsection (4) or (5)—

(a) section (Powers of entry: further provision)(7) to (10) (further provision about powers of entry);

(b) section (Powers of entry: offences) (offences).

(9) Sections 72 and (Compulsory purchase powers: Secretary of State) (powers to acquire land compulsorily) do not apply in relation to Crown land.

(10) In this section, “Crown land” and “the appropriate authority” have the same meanings as in Part 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 293 of that Act).”—(Matthew Pennycook.)

New Clause 1

Power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission

“(1) Where a local planning authority has previously given planning permission to a party (the “initial grant”), the planning authority may decline any future planning applications from the party where, in respect of the initial grant of planning permission, the party has failed to—

(a) build out the structure or development,

(b) make sufficient progress towards the building out of the structure or development within a reasonable time period, or

(c) build out the structure or development at a reasonable rate.

(2) A local planning authority may define how it is to interpret “sufficient progress”, “reasonable time period” and “reasonable rate” as part of its local plan.”—(Ellie Chowns.)

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 15—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction— “(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include— (a) the affordability to the applicant; or (b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant. (2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or a part of the proposed development. (3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.” This amendment would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability. New clause 25—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)— “Where an application proposes— (a) to develop more than 10 houses, and (b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing, no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would reduce the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed on the grounds of viability to the applicant.” This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability. New clause 55—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission— “In section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (general condition limiting duration of planning permission), after subsection (3) insert— “(3ZZA) Subject to subsection (4), where a development includes the construction of 100 or more houses and has not begun within the applicable period, ownership of the land on which such development was permitted transfers to the relevant local authority on the expiration of the applicable period.”” This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, ownership of the land to which the permission applies passes to the relevant local authority. New clause 60—Thresholds for affordable housing provision— “Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of— (a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or (b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.” This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide. New clause 61—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on— (a) land owners, and (b) developers who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period. (2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament— (a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and (b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.” New clause 76—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development— “(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development. (2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”— (a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission; (b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission. (3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.” New clause 82—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure— “(1) This section applies where— (a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or (b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for, the development of local infrastructure. (2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full. (3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include— (a) schools, (b) nurseries, and (c) General Practice clinics. (4) A duty under this section may be disapplied [by whom] with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.” This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding. New clause 83—Development of land for the public benefit— “(1) This section applies where— (a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and (b) such development— (i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or (ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose. (2) Where this section applies— (a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority; (b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset; (c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), must consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development. (3) For the purposes of this section— “local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres. “community asset” means— (a) a public park; (b) a public leisure facility; (c) social housing; (d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.” This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.

New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), and I remind colleagues that I am the Member for North Herefordshire—always a cause for confusion. I will also speak to six other new clauses, three of which are intended to dissuade developers from engaging in land banking, and three to ensure that affordable housing targets are met. New clause 1 would give the planning authority the power to decline future planning applications from a developer that had failed to use, or at least to make sufficient progress on, planning permission that they had already been given. This is designed to stop the practice whereby developers purchase land, get planning permission on it and do nothing with it. I think we all agree, on both sides of the Committee, that we need to expedite the building of affordable housing, so this is a proportionate and clear measure to support that. It relates to new clause 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. If such land is not built on, the land should transfer to the local authority, so that it can get on with doing the job instead. New clause 61, which was also tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, suggests extending business rates for developers that do not build. Each new clause is designed to prevent the practice of land banking, to encourage developers to get on and build when they have been given planning permission.

I completely understand why the new clause has been tabled, and we support the premise behind it, but can I ask the hon. Lady for clarification? She may not know, and that is perfectly acceptable. Say an application went in for a nursing home, but the business went bust before the initial build out was delivered. If the developer wanted to change the application to allow it to build a block of flats, how would the new clause prevent that from happening? It is a genuine question, and I do not know what the answer is.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his genuine question. He highlights a case that arguably represents complexities that the Government employ lots of lawyers to fix. I do not think it would prevent a new clause such as this from progressing. The intention is to prevent land banking, and if lawyers need to tweak the language a little bit, so be it. I will move on briefly to new clauses 15, 25 and 60, which are all about ensuring that affordable housing is actually built. New clause 60 would set a lower bound on the amount of affordable housing that was due to be constructed. New clauses 15 and 25 are intended to ensure that the affordable housing commitments that developers make in their initial applications are not subsequently chipped away at or eroded by arguments about viability. Fundamentally, if there are issues around viability, the Government and local authorities should prioritise the building of affordable housing, not the safeguarding of developer profits. The new clauses are therefore intended to ensure that when developers commit during the planning process to building affordable houses, they stick to those commitments. I commend the new clauses to the Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I rise to say a few words about new clause 1, but I will principally speak about our new clause 55, which is a mechanism to incentivise the building of housing developments that have lain unbuilt and undeveloped for three years. On new clause 1, I am very sympathetic to the proposal made by the hon. Members for North Herefordshire and for North East Hertfordshire—we are only missing Hampshire—but, frankly, we prefer our approach. There is a long-standing principle in planning law that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration, and by and large we wish to stand by that. There is scope for the new clause to be used to prejudice particular applicants. There is also a practical consideration. Land changes hands very quickly and, whoever owns it, different applicants can make applications. I am reminded of the famous case in Oxford of university students applying for a nuclear power station on Christ Church meadow, because a person can apply for anything on any land, whether they own it or not. In fact, the Town and Country Planning Association applied for permission for an airport on Maplin Sands, even though it was probably not going to be able to build it. Those bizarre examples demonstrate that the person of the applicant is not a relevant consideration. Under new clause 1, a different applicant with a different name or a different agent of the same landowner could immediately come forward, so I have practical concerns about it. Our approach is to introduce a “use it or lose it” principle into the planning system. Specifically, where a development of 100 homes or more has been granted permission but not started within the applicable period—usually three years—the land will transfer to the relevant local authority. We expect that in those circumstances, the usual provisions of the Land Compensation Acts and the principles of fairness in compulsory acquisition, which I referred to in a previous debate, would apply. We accept the principle that developers and house builders need a pipeline—a plan for their land—but three years is a significant amount of time. The recent moves to encourage the build-out of homes that have not been built have not succeeded. We have had a reduction from five years to three years in the lifespan of planning permissions, but there has not been a significant change in the build-out rate, so we need significant measures if we are to make these major schemes happen. This is not about penalising people; it is about dealing with an issue that is clearly undermining our ability to tackle the housing crisis. Across the country, there are permissions for 1.5 million new homes that have not been built—13,000 in my authority area of Somerset alone. Those homes could house thousands of families. Research from TerraQuest, which operates the planning portal—not a particularly radical or out-there organisation —shows that a third of all homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. Ten years on, that shows that unbuilt permissions are an enduring problem that needs to be tackled. If all those permissions had been built out, the Government would have hit their annual 300,000 homes target in eight out of the last 10 years, and yet the approach so far focuses almost entirely on allocating more and more permissions in the hope that that will result in more homes being built. There is no lack of planning permissions; the problem is that developers are not building out the ones they already have, because the current system does not penalise delay. Two big things could be done to improve housing supply: funding social housing and funding infrastructure. If those things were funded in a range of areas around the country, there would be almost unlimited build-out rates on stalled sites. Developers clearly, and I think reasonably and rationally, will only build out at a rate that sustains the price of their product and their viability. They have fiduciary duties to their shareholders, and they need to maintain the viability of their companies. So they will not build out at a rate significant enough to flood the local market with housing and depress the price. We cannot blame them for wanting to make a profit—that is what we expect them to do—but we need to fund social housing publicly, as it was funded in the past, to get out of that bind. That is why I believe we need a stronger lever than we currently have.

14:30:00

“Use it or lose it” is not just a slogan; it is the principle behind new clause 55, which would force developers to think very seriously before sitting on land banks, especially on bigger developments of more than 100 homes. We accept the realities of development—as I say, developers need a pipeline of permissions—but three years should be long enough. If construction has not even started when that window closes, it is right that local authorities can step in and take over. There is a social housing waiting list of 1.3 million, and that cannot be tackled by developer contributions alone, so we need the social house building that I have mentioned.

The new clause does two things: it creates a clear incentive for developers to build rather than to hoard land, and it gives local authorities the tools they need to deliver social homes. We need a planning system that rewards delivery, not speculation, and puts people, social homes and house building ahead of profits, as well as one that actually links permissions to homes that get built.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I would like to speak to new clause 76, which is in my name. This new clause seeks to probe the Minister’s thoughts about the success of local authorities in tackling and challenging the unauthorised development that has gone on. As he will know, the last Government made intentional unauthorised development a material consideration, meaning that planning permission could be refused, and there is a presumption that it should be refused, when development has taken place without consent. I think it is safe to say that we do not think—many of us see this in our constituencies—that that is being enforced uniformly. The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has an open case at the moment, and I am sure all of us, as elected MPs, have had such cases in the past. There is also an issue with unauthorised encampments. The new clause goes a step further by saying that if development has taken place without authorisation, the planning authority should not grant consent. This is a probing amendment because such provisions already exist, but there are many examples across the country of enforcement not taking place. New clause 76 requires that no planning permission is to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development. It would provide a power to the local planning authority not to grant consent for development “where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.” It gives further detail about the meaning of “intentional unauthorised development”, which “(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission”, but “(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.” We have put in paragraph (b) to take account of householders who have undertaken small modifications—for instance, small extensions, walls or garden sheds—that in certain circumstances would need planning permission. We do not want to persecute or make the law come down hard on those who have made a genuine mistake. This is about larger unauthorised development. The reason for tabling the new clause is that we think the Bill should go further in restricting unauthorised development, and that we want local planning authorities to be able to enforce the powers they have through the legislative changes made by the last Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in the context of our earlier debate about hope value, it is important that this issue is addressed? For law-abiding citizens, nothing is more frustrating than someone carrying out an unauthorised development, potentially on a site in the green belt, as we have seen on a number of occasions, and then being able to regularise that by obtaining retrospective planning permission, when, had they applied lawfully to begin with, it would have been refused. That is an injustice in the planning system that needs to be addressed.

My hon. Friend is right; I think that we have all seen that happen as Members of Parliament. It makes a mockery of the planning system when people—they know exactly what they are doing—retrospectively apply for permission and still reap the benefits. There was an example of this in my old constituency that involved removing trees that had tree preservation orders, in order to build on some land. Doing so destroyed that area of land, and it went completely against what should have happened. When the developer went to the local authority, it retrospectively granted planning permission, and the local villagers were outraged. My hon. Friend is right: the new clause is meant to tackle those who know how to play the system. However, if someone has made unintentional changes to a house that could be covered under permitted development rights, but may go slightly beyond them, we would give local planning authorities the jurisdiction and authority to use their own minds in such cases. I hope that the Minister understands why we are trying to probe him to see whether he can strengthen the Bill in relation to unauthorised development. He may have to write to me after the Committee—I am sorry to the officials for asking for another letter—about whether the last Government’s measures to give local authorities that power has worked and, if not, how we could work together to ensure that unauthorised development is stopped. We do not want to stop developments, but we think that there needs to be fairness in the planning system. People, who may not be well off, who want to make a planning application for their own home often find it a difficult experience when, just down the road, people are doing it willy-nilly whenever they want to. I look forward to clarification from the Minister. If he needs to write to me, that is absolutely fine.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms Jardine. I rise to speak first to new clause 1, which seems to me, as someone who has worked closely with developers, ill thought out. It does not address the need to build more social and affordable homes. Permissions that are granted, particularly on brownfield sites, often contain any number of conditions that are extremely difficult for developers to achieve—discharging conditions around environmental remediation and, for example, looking after bats or newts, which are common where I practise. There is also a lack of local authority staff competent to deal with section 106 agreements. Permissions are often granted to developers before they own the land, and there may be suitable tax reasons why people do not wish to sell the land until the following tax year. It is easy for those things to stretch over way more than three years, and sometimes up to five years. I am in favour of building more social homes, but the new clause would not achieve that objective. It also does not take into account the massive shortage of workers in the construction sector, the skills that we need or the shortage of materials, which has become even more acute in the past couple of years. I also want to talk about new clause 76. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley has entertained us for most of the day with minor matters, but his new clause would have an effect that he has perhaps not thought about. The majority of unauthorised planning that I saw in my practice was carried out by farmers who were not able to make enough money from farming their land, so very often diversified their large warehouse-type structures and started using them for small businesses—perhaps renting them out to local engineering firms and so on. After a period of 10 years, somebody would complain in the local village and they would then apply for an authorised use certificate, and nine times out of 10, it would be granted. The impact of new clause 76—that unauthorised change of use—would prevent those people from developing new homes on their site or opening up more opportunities for new businesses. It needs more thought and attention, because the very people who would be impacted are those who the Opposition say that they stand up for. Very often, they will be farmers who are looking to diversify their property.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Jardine. I wish to speak to new clause 25, which would, for developments of more than 10 houses, require that where 20% of those houses are to be developed for social housing, developers would not be able to reduce that amount below 20% over the fullness of time, as often happens today. We all seem to support the need for more social housing, but we have debated at length in Committee how best we get there. In the interest of brevity, and conscious that we have more new clauses coming than the entire Dead Sea scrolls, I will keep my remarks concise. We in the Liberal Democrats feel that new clause 25 is necessary to hold developers account to that 20% quota for social housing, rather than being able to fritter it away. It relates to points that we previously made, that it would seem that without more regulation, market forces alone are not succeeding in delivering the social housing that we all recognise we need.

I appreciate hon. Members speaking to these new clauses. I recognise the worthy intentions that sit behind many of them. The Government certainly recognise the challenges of many of the issues that they touch on. It will not surprise Members that the Government will not be able to accept them, but I hope I can set out in some detail why that is the case. Let me first deal with new clauses 1, 55 and 61, all of which relate in some way to build-out. All seek to improve the speed of build-out of developments by giving local planning authorities greater control and power where developments are not built out fast enough. New clause 1 seeks to introduce a power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission. New clause 55 seeks to introduce a new mechanism for developments of 100 houses or more where, if permission is not used within an applicable period, the ownership of the land would pass to the relevant local authority. I want to make clear to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that the Government agree with the objective of improving the build-out rate of residential development. We want to see homes built out faster where they have consent, and I very much recognise—I say this as a constituency MP, as well as a Minister—the frustrations that stalled or delayed sites can cause to communities, particularly to people in communities who have gone through the process of putting in a view on an application. They have an application that they want to see come forward, and then the site does not develop. The Government expect developers to do all that they can to deliver, but we do not think these new clauses are necessary to achieve that. In the case of new clause 55, which effectively involves the transfer of land to a local authority without compensation if planning permission is not commenced, we feel that would be disproportionate, not compatible with the European convention on human rights and would have a chilling effect on development, as it would create risks for developers that their planning permissions may not be implemented. Instead, we are introducing new requirements for statutory build-out reporting by implementing the provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 on commencement notices and development progress reports. That will provide local planning authorities and communities with greater transparency about the rate of build-out of developments and any delays that may occur.

14:45:00

This new build-out reporting framework will be underpinned by a similar power to the power proposed in new clause 1. Provisions were introduced under section 113 of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act for a power to decline to determine applications in cases of earlier non-implementation. We were clear in the national planning policy framework response in December that we will implement the provisions on build-out transparency, following technical consultation, which we will publish shortly.

Once those provisions are implemented, local planning authorities will get standardised information on the commencement of development, followed by annual development progress reports, until the development is completed. They will also have the power to decline to determine future applications made by developers who have failed to build out earlier planning permissions in the authority’s area at a reasonable rate.

New clause 61 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult on providing local planning authorities with the power to levy business rates on landowners and developers who fail to complete the development of projects within a reasonable period. Business rates are a tax on the occupation of non-domestic property. The Valuation Office Agency is responsible for the assessment and valuation of all domestic and non-domestic properties and, with local authorities, for bringing those properties into taxation, either when the building is considered complete and capable of beneficial occupation or where a billing authority serves a completion notice.

Valuations for business rates reflect the annual rental value of a property to a hypothetical tenant. However, undeveloped land has no rental value to a tenant and is not typically liable for business rates. Therefore, I do not think that business rates and changes to the rates system would be an appropriate mechanism for a build-out sanction.

As with the amendments tabled on build-out and land banking, I fully understand the motivation. That is why the Government are introducing the transparency measures that I have already mentioned. In addition, I want to ensure that there are credible sanctions in place for slow build-out. The Government will have more to say about that in due course. Therefore, as the existing legislation already makes important provisions to support faster build-out, I ask that the new clauses be withdrawn.

I turn to new clauses 15, 25, and 60, which, taken together, seek to restrict the extent to which developers can negotiate affordable housing contributions and then renegotiate down their affordable housing obligations. As I have said many times in this Committee and in the main Chamber, and as our manifesto made clear, the Government are committed to the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. That is important as an end in itself, to ensure that people have affordable homes to rent and in which to live. It is also important for build-out. We could spend a long time going back over the numerous reports, not least the Letwin review, which have shown that sites that have a higher proportion of social and affordable housing in them build out faster than sites with a lower proportion, so there is a direct link to the previous group of amendments.

As part of our commitment, and as I said this morning, we are strengthening the system of developer contributions, including section 106 planning obligations, to ensure that new developments provide necessary affordable homes and infrastructure. We have already made important progress in delivering against that commitment. For example, through the revised NPPF published on 12 December last year, we introduced golden rules for major development involving the provision of housing on land released from the green belt. Those golden rules mean higher levels of affordable housing, necessary infrastructure and accessible green space are delivered, as a quid pro quo for the recognition of the public value attributed by communities to the green belt.

We recognise that the ability for developers to negotiate down their planning obligations on viability grounds creates uncertainty for communities about what levels of affordable housing may ultimately be delivered. Similarly, the ability for developers to renegotiate their affordable housing commitments after planning permission has been granted can erode public trust in the planning process. That is why, as part of our commitments on social and affordable housing supply, we have committed to reviewing the planning practice guidance on viability. Until we have published updates to that guidance, we have been clear that development that is subject to the golden rules should not be subject to viability negotiations. For this interim period, if land is released from the green belt to be developed, the golden rules will apply as set out in our response to the NPPF.

However, there is a careful balance to be struck between strengthening the system and retaining the necessary degree of flexibility, allowing negotiation and renegotiation to take place where it is genuinely justified. This is a really important point. That may include where there is a significant change of circumstances, so that if the affordable housing contribution were not changed, the development would simply stall.

London is a slightly different example, but in many parts of the country, local planning authorities do not have the sufficient skills resource to be able to challenge viability assessments properly, and we need to ensure that they do. There are many instances where, due to changes in market conditions or other changes, a developer can reasonably come back and say, “On viability grounds, I cannot bring this scheme forward”.

I think the real risk in imposing some of the changes that the new clauses seek to bring forward is that we do not see development of any kind coming forward. I make that point merely to say that while we have got a clear commitment to increasing the volume of social and affordable housing, we need to see homes of all tenures come forward. That may not be in the very short term, and it is certainly not a panacea, as I think the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington has in the past accused me of suggesting, but increasing housing supply of all tenures over the medium to long term will help with affordability. We have much to do in the short term to boost social and affordable housing, but we do want to see sites come forward. We would not want to prohibit sites from coming forward at all, as would happen if some of these changes were made.

Let me emphasise the point around viability and the impact of a precarious economic situation on developers’ ability to build. Does the Minister agree that the challenges for the private sector that he has set out also apply to local authorities? In estate renewal in London, for example, many have had to relook at the viability of that and have seen delays for a number of years because markets have changed and the land analysis has altered. It is a changing picture depending on the moment in time, and one that it is inextricably linked to the economic picture at the time.

My hon. Friend is right. If we are having a mature conversation about this, we have to recognise that economic circumstances can change and that the costs that developers are having to deal with—build material costs have increased significantly, particularly in London—are factors they do have to weigh in their judgments. On the other side of the coin, it is important, in strengthening the section 106 system, that we are ensuring local authorities can negotiate robustly on those agreements and that we hold developers to the commitments that they make. The Government’s intention is to do both.

Will the Minister give way?

I will, but I do not want to lead us down the path of a long debate on viability.

I thank the Minister for giving way. He is talking about changes in viability. What does he say to councils that are in the position of having granted planning permission, had a viability assessment and agreed a 106, and the developer comes back a year or two later and says that they cannot do it and will have to put in a new planning application, have a new viability assessment and a new 106, but because the council has determined a planned application on that site, if it went to the planning inspector, there would be a lower bar for that development to get over? That is because the council has already accepted the principle of development on that site under the premise of one section 106 negotiation. Does the Minister think that, on the second go, the developer should have to start from the beginning, have the same principles to get the development off the ground, and that the same higher bar should apply? At the end of the day it is the community that lose out from the community obligations that the developer is trying to get out of.

The hon. Member tempts me into commenting on hypotheticals. I will instead say the following. There are two things happening here. We have to be aware of the ability for some existing mechanisms—section 73 applications are a good example—to be gamed in terms of viability to drive down the amount of public gain. I am aware of that, and I have been very candid about it. On the other hand, and correspondingly, if a permission such as the one he hypothetically mentioned is in place, I think that is testament to why it is so important that we bring forward measures on build-out transparency and have the powers to be able to say to developers, as the Government are saying to all developers, “If you’ve got a consent, then get on and build.” The Government are making a variety of reforms to the planning system, which in any number of ways will provide for a more rules-based system, more certainty and will drive down development costs. We are firming up planning policy guidance and expectations. We are making it clearer and easier for developers to put in an application and we should reduce costs as well. Correspondingly, we can ask for more. We are bringing forward measures in fairly short order on build-out and we will turn on the LURA provisions that I have mentioned. On that basis, I ask for the new clauses to be withdrawn. New clause 76, tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, seeks to prevent those who have deliberately undertaken unauthorised development from obtaining planning permission retrospectively. The Government do not condone unauthorised development and are clear that anyone seeking to undertake development should first obtain planning permission where it is required. I therefore very much appreciate the sentiment behind his new clause. I recall debating with a shadow Secretary of State this particular matter in relation to Gypsy and Traveller camps, and I appreciate that across the House there is concern about the use of unauthorised developments. However, the Government’s view is that there may be circumstances—I am happy to set this out in writing to the shadow Minister—in which unauthorised development, even if it is intentional, may be acceptable in planning terms or may be made so by the imposition of planning conditions. I say that only to make the point that we believe that there is a need for some pragmatism here and that such developments should be considered by the local planning authority. It is already the case that intentional unauthorised development, as he said, is a material consideration. It must be weighed in the balance when determining planning applications and appeals. That approach retains local decision making. The Government obviously keep this matter under review. I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister about the Government’s view as to whether the enforcement powers available to local planning authorities—they have a wide range of powers, with strong penalties for non-compliance—are being used, and if not, why not. I am also more than happy to share with him our understanding of how local planning authorities and inspectors are treating unauthorised development as a material consideration, as they are now required to do. I hope that, on that basis, I have provided him with some reassurance.

I appreciate the Minister’s being so open and genuinely—I wouldn’t say I didn’t believe him before—promising to go away and look at this issue. We would like to take him up on that; we will not press our new clause today, but there are conversations to be had further down the line on this topic. Will he just confirm whether his Department holds any statistics on how many unauthorised developments we are talking about? Is there is a reporting structure for local authorities, which may be held by the Planning Inspectorate? We would like to know how his Department is monitoring the number of unauthorised developments that are using the powers that were given to local authorities, if that makes sense.

What I can commit to—I feel the glares from my officials on me now—is this. If we have the information, I am more than happy to have a conversation with the shadow Minister to give him a sense of, across the country, how local authorities are using their existing enforcement powers and the extent to which, although I think this will be difficult information for Government to track, local planning authorities and inspectors are relying on unauthorised development as a material consideration. I am thinking, for example, of inspectors allowing things on appeal that are unauthorised. If we have that information, I am more than happy to share it and to have that conversation with the hon. Gentleman.

I thank all those who have contributed and the Minister for his very thoughtful responses. On new clause 1, I note the Minister’s assurances that existing mechanisms will be going some way, at least, to addressing the concerns I have raised about build-out, so I will not push it to a vote at this point. I will not push the new clauses on affordability to a vote at this point, either, because I will be speaking to new clause 3, which is specifically on this issue, but I will emphasise that when we are thinking about viability, we must remember that we have a huge crisis of a lack of affordable housing in this country. We do not have a crisis in developer profits—not at all. I would like to cite to the Committee a paragraph from a report that I have just checked out: “Since 2014, the largest housebuilders, and in particular the three largest housebuilders by volume (Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon…) have consistently reported supernormal levels of profitability, with gross profit margins reaching 32% and never falling below 17%”. That is the reality of the crisis of excess developer profits that we face in the current housing market, and it is from independent academics. In that context, I think that it is incumbent on the Government and everybody to do everything possible to ensure that viability tests are not used as an excuse by developers to wriggle out of commitments to providing affordable housing. I am genuinely concerned that the provisions in existing law and in this Bill will still leave a huge viability loophole for developers. If in the next 10 years we continue to have those levels of supernormal profits on the part of developers, this Government will have absolutely failed all those who are struggling in the face of the housing crisis.

15:00:00

I think some of this will become evident in the fullness of time. There has been an implicit criticism of the Government at several points in Committee that we are entirely reliant on a market-led approach, and are happy with an entirely developer-led, market-led approach. That is not the case. We think that targeted reforms to the planning system are necessary, but we also absolutely believe that reform of our broken house building model is required. I have said on many occasions that we are overly reliant on a speculative development model that produces bad outcomes. Hon. Members across the Committee will see before too long other measures that the Government are bringing forward to both transform and disrupt that market in ways that are beneficial.

Disrupt!

Well, the market does need to be disrupted, in the particular sense that we need new entrants coming forward, and small and medium-sized enterprises and community led-housing back in the game. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said, and I think he is right, that developers have a business model, particularly volume builders. Some are changing their business model and we would encourage change to those business models, but there is a particular model that relies on very high margins. I know the academic study that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire cited. We must and will reduce our reliance on that. We also must be careful about weighing in on viability in a way that would just stop house building coming forward in lots of cases, because that would ultimately help nobody. A final point that I think is pertinent to this debate: I always find the nimby and yimby debate incredibly reductive, but I think that some who oppose development on the basis that they only prioritise social and affordable housing discount the fact that building homes of any tenure in localities assists people trying to access social and affordable rent. It all helps and it need not be one or the other.

I think what comes across in some of the proposed new clauses, which is not the case in the Bill itself, is a punitive scheme for developers. What we need to do is work in partnership with smaller developers and community developers in particular, so that we can build out any number of different types of homes—whether they are apartments, bungalows, or small starter homes. All of those are important in the market and will help young people to feel that they can get on the housing ladder and not have to rely on living in their parents’ spare room until they are in their mid-30s.

That is a good point. To wrap this debate up, I think it is right that the Government seek to take forward planning reform in the way we have, and to streamline the planning process in a way that drops costs on developers where it is appropriate. Equally, we must be robust with developers. We want to put this mechanism in place and ensure that local authorities can negotiate section 106 agreements robustly. Where those agreements are entered into, we expect them to be delivered and we expect sites to be built out. As I say, hon. Members will not have to wait too long to see some of the changes that are not in existing law, but that the Government are bringing forward. On that basis, I hope hon. Members might not press the new clauses.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.  New Clause 2 Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans. (2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet— (a) local housing targets, and (b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.” —(Ellie Chowns.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Brought up, and read the First time.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am reflecting on the comments that the Minister just made on the broken speculative model of development that we are currently stuck with. The new clause actually fits with amendment 2 to clause 91, which I spoke to earlier. Essentially, the new clause is asking the Government to review the way that local plans are set under the national planning policy framework, and specifically, to consider replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement in which the onus is on local planning authorities to identify sites in their areas that are necessary to achieve local housing targets and sustainable development. Currently, under-resourced and underfunded councils are forced to accept whatever ill-suited sites are offered up by developers. The pressure of meeting local housing needs often means that there is pressure to accept the sites that are offered rather than no sites. The new clause does not force the Government to do anything apart from a review that specifically looks at redressing the power to identify which sites housing should be built on, and putting it much more in the hands of local planning authorities. That way they can take a genuinely strategic approach, rather than being at the mercy of developers’ initiatives, which may not be in the interests of the public.

New clause 2, which the hon. Lady has just spoken to, was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. The purpose of the planning system is clear: to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The UN’s sustainable development goals are important to that. It is because of their importance that they are already addressed via existing planning laws, planning policy, guidance and processes. The objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development is being delivered by the existing requirement to prepare local plans under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The national planning policy framework already contains policy on sustainable development with the presumption in favour of sustainable development at its heart. National policy includes how to plan for good design, sustainable modes of transport including walking and cycling, an integrated approach to the location of housing, economic uses and the community services and facilities needed. It recognises the importance to health, wellbeing and recreation that open space and green infrastructure provides, and is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need and seek opportunities for new provision. It also contains policies on how to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places, and sets out that the planning system should support the transition to a low-carbon future. The NPPF is also clear that planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes. The framework must be given regard to in preparing the development plan, and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The “call for sites” process ensures early engagement with landowners and land promoters to understand the availability and achievability of land identified to deliver sustainable development. The current process ensures consideration of the economic, environmental and social impacts of proposed sites for development, and how those contribute to a more sustainable future. The important part here is that the assessment does not in itself determine whether a site should be allocated for development. It is the role of the assessment to provide information on the range of sites that are available to meet the local authority’s requirements, but it is for the local development plan, taken through with consultation with the local community—we definitely want more consultation with communities upstream in the local plan development process—to determine which of the sites in a “call for sites” are the most suitable to meet the requirements. While I recognise the intentions behind it, the new clause would ultimately undermine the Government priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, which is the key mechanism that enables sustainable development and housing delivery to take place. Although I understand the spirit of the new clause, the Government oppose it, as these important matters are already being considered and addressed through existing laws, systems, national planning policy and associated guidance—which are obviously kept under review at all times. On that basis, I hope the hon. Lady will withdraw the new clause.

I honestly do not entirely follow the Minister’s argument about this measure potentially replacing the work of local authorities in driving development plans, because that is specifically what the new clause is about. It is about putting more power in the hands of local authorities rather than in the hands of the developers. However, given that we have multiple other new clauses to get to, some of which I am especially keen on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 3 Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing “(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of— (a) affordable housing, and (b) social housing. (2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”—(Ellie Chowns.) This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing. Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing. (2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.” This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”. New clause 26—Provision of Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes— “The Secretary of State must, within 1 year of the passing of this Act— (a) require 10% of homes delivered through the Affordable Homes Programme to be Older Persons Housing or Later Living Homes, and (b) provide grant funding to support the capital costs of developing Older Persons Housing and Later Living Homes.” This new clause would support the capital costs of developing affordable and inclusive housing for older people and support the provision of adequate supply. New clause 37—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns— “(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may— (a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development, (b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan, and (c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply. (2) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or more than 2,500 houses of a new town ma— (a) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries, and (b) extend the area designated for the new town through its local plan process. (3) For the purposes of this section, ‘new town’ means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.” This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns. New clause 48—Review of method for assessing local housing need— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need. (2) A review under this section must consider— (a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property; (b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit. (3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) local councils; and (b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must— (a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations; (b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.” New clause 49—New towns to contribute towards housing targets— “In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.” New clause 50—Local Housing Plans— “(1) A local planning authority must develop a Local Housing Plan for its area for the purposes of informing its local plan. (2) A Local Housing Plan must outline the number and type of homes— (a) required, and (b) proposed to be built, in the authority’s area.” New clause 75—Requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development. (2) The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.” New clause 92—Housing needs of ageing population— “Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”

It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. The new clause was tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire, and I give the Minister notice that I am particularly keen on it. It would require any national or local housing plan to include and justify quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing. To me, the new clause seems like a no-brainer, and a measure that we should already have, given that we have such a huge housing crisis, have had no coherent Government housing strategy over the last decade or more, and have no serious goal to end homelessness or deal with the social housing waiting list or affordability issues. I recognise that the Government are making some efforts in the legislation they are introducing. I am particularly excited by the Minister’s promise of disruptive measures to tackle some of the remaining problems in the housing market. We absolutely have to build more homes for social rent. In the 10 years between 2014-15 and 2023-24, England built 2.2 million homes. Would anybody like to guess what percentage of them were for social rent? Only 3% of them were for social rent, which is the only tenure that is genuinely affordable to those on the lowest incomes. I recently saw stats about the changes in planning permissions in the last six months: 6% of the permissions granted in that time have been for social rented homes. It is nowhere near enough. We desperately need more homes for social rent.

I understand and agree that we need to build more social rented homes, but does the hon. Lady not agree that the figures she gave could be perceived as being slightly simplistic, because they do not take into account the regional variations in where housing lists and social homes are most needed? I accept that social rent made up 3% of the total, and permissions recently increased to 6%, but in areas such as Southampton, London, Basingstoke or big urban centres, the proportion will be dramatically higher.

I would be more than happy to go through spreadsheets with the hon. Member, because I like a nice spreadsheet. Although the figures might be slightly higher in London, I do not think anybody would argue that there is therefore sufficient affordable housing in London, or anywhere close to sufficient.

I agree.

I am delighted that the hon. Member agrees. We can all agree that there is a crisis in affordable and social housing. Unless we set targets to tackle that at every level of housing planning, we will be guaranteed to fail to create the affordable and social housing we need.

Does the hon. Member recognise that targets were in place for a number of years, and that in most cases local authorities failed to meet them, not because of a lack of trying, but because market circumstances meant that viability did not work and planning permissions could not get through, and for a variety of other reasons? Targets do not, in and of themselves, drive delivery in the numbers we need in this country.

I recognise that multiple factors drive the delivery of social and affordable housing—and, indeed, the achievement of any targets so to do—but what the hon. Member said is a bit inconsistent, because the Government have just introduced huge new housing targets based on an argument that we have to have targets for particular numbers in particular locations, no matter how well suited or otherwise they might be to the circumstances of the local planning authorities. Members cannot argue that housing targets are really useful at the level of overall numbers but not useful in relation to affordable and social housing, which is the point of crisis. The Minister said, in his response to a previous new clause that I spoke to, that we need to recognise that building any sort of housing is helpful. I kind of get his point; I think he is trying to make a sort of “trickle up” point—that people can trickle up out of the most affordable housing and into more expensive housing, and that vacates the cheaper housing—but the fundamental problem is that we have nowhere close to enough genuinely affordable housing, by which I mean social rented housing, being built. This is therefore a very reasonable amendment, simply asking that, at every level of housing plan—local and national—targets are set. It does not say what those targets should be; it just says that each plan should set a target for affordable housing and social housing.

15:15:00

Does the hon. Member not agree that, in most local plans—if not all local plans that come forward; I took one through for Broxbourne when I was leader of the council—we do have targets for affordable and social homes? The reason lots of those do not get built out is because of the issues that we discussed earlier around viability. Just having a target does not necessarily deliver what she and I want to deliver: more social homes. We can have that target, but it is about the viability and the costs that developers try to get out of. That is why they do not get built.

I thank the hon. Member for his point, which is actually exactly the same point that the hon. Member for Barking made, essentially—

It was a very good point!

Yes—both singing from the same hymn sheet on this. I refer the hon. Member for Broxbourne to the answer that I gave two minutes ago to those comments: I am not saying that just setting a target for social and affordable housing will magic it up, and I am not denying that multiple factors impact on the delivery. In fact, I think the hon. Gentleman might be so gracious as to recognise that, in many of the previous measures—and ones coming up—that I have tabled to the Bill, I have been trying to address some of those issues, for example, in relation to hope value, restrictions on local authorities, and so forth. I am not saying that the new clause is a magic bullet, and I welcome the fact that many local plans contain targets for affordable and social housing. I certainly do not think that just having the targets will ensure that they are achieved, but if the Government are to be consistent in their own rhetoric, that setting targets is important because it gives people something to aim for, then I very much hope that they will support the setting of targets for affordable homes, and particularly social rented homes, because that is where the crisis is in our housing supply. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I rise to speak to new clauses 8, 26 and 92, just to introduce briefly what they do. New clause 8 is about coming up with a more sophisticated definition of what “affordable housing” is, taking into account local needs and circumstances, while new clauses 92 and 26 are about quotas, funding and the assessment of the housing needs of an ageing and older population. I shall keep my remarks on new clause 8 concise, because the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has made many of the points that I would otherwise have made. I agree with her that there seems to be a bit of cognitive dissonance going on when those on the Government Benches express scepticism about the ability of targets for affordable and social housing to deliver progress, yet are adamant that targets for housing overall will do that. Perhaps the Minister will address that point in his remarks. The key issue in terms of new clauses 26 and 92 is that the current definition of “affordable housing” is not considered affordable by many organisations. That particularly applies to people of an older age on a low income, who are still subject to many aspects of housing costs. It is not just me who thinks that the current definition of “affordable” is nothing of the sort. Shelter agrees, calling it “unaffordable for those on average incomes”. Similarly, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have argued for affordability to be linked to local incomes, not market rates, and the Town and Country Planning Association also recommends local flexibility, stating in its housing guides that the 80% rule does not work in areas of high market distortion. Even the Labour-run Greater London Authority operates its own model, with the Mayor, Sadiq Khan, introducing a new category of “genuinely affordable” rent, which includes social rent, London living rent and shared-ownership schemes, as a way of creating a better benchmark. As mentioned previously in this Bill Committee, house prices in constituencies such as mine still reflect a distorted market in which housing remains inordinately expensive despite enormous housing growth. Residents would certainly benefit from local authorities’ having the power to set what is meant by affordable housing, taking into account local circumstances on issues such as wages. We also need to be more detailed and thoughtful about how we go about the issue of our ageing population. This is not just about the older old in care homes and similar facilities; it is also about people becoming old. For example, 40% of homeowners and 60% of renters aged 70 will have moved into their homes since the age of 50. Those homes may suit them when they move in, but they may not suit them as they age and will need to be adaptable. That is something that local authorities and all of us need to consider a lot more. Equally, 50% of renters aged between 45 and 64 have no savings, and many will struggle to afford their rent in retirement. The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that if current trends continue, the cost of housing benefit for older renters will increase by 40%, or an additional £2 billion per annum. Thinking more carefully about how we provide for an ageing population, as these new clauses propose, would benefit not just those who are affected by the cost of housing, but the public finances, given the ever-increasing housing benefit bill that we will face if we do not take serious action and change our approach. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

I rise to speak to new clauses 48, 49, 50 and 75, most of which are in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—I do not know whether he intends to intervene or to speak after me, but he is more than welcome to do so, because he drafted the new clauses and can do them a lot more justice then I can. These wide-ranging provisions would help strengthen the legislation. We tabled new clause 48 because we want to review the method for assessing local housing need. The current method does not adequately account for the type of home being built. For example, a family home can accommodate more people than a one-bedroom flat, and it should count for more because it goes further towards meeting a local area’s housing need. Under the current methodology, we often end up with the wrong stock being built and with people being displaced or having to move away from long-standing connections in their local area. New clause 48 states: “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need…A review under this section must consider…how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property”— as we have indicated, that should be based on demographics and local housing lists— “basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit…In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult…local councils; and…any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and eloquent speech—far more excellent and eloquent than my contribution will be. Does he agree that one of the big concerns the Bill needs to address is the sense among some constituents that new housing development is not built for them or their community? We need to make sure that this debate is about homes, and that means we need greater subtlety and nuance in housing plans and the targets we set. It is not simply about delivering units—the dark towers we see in parts of central London, whose units are not available to or occupied by the local community—but about having a housing supply that reflects the needs of a particular place.

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Who can say the Conservative party is divided when we have a bromance like this? My hon. Friend and I agree with each other all the time. He says that my speech is better than his, which is untrue, but he makes a serious point. The whole point of the Bill, and of our being here, is to ensure that housing is deliverable and accountable, and that it adapts to the will and the needs of local people. We are in Parliament and we stand for election predominantly to make our areas better and to leave the world in a better place, with people feeling better. In my constituency, we have many four-bed and five-bed family homes. We also have a huge housing waiting list. Those homes cost £250,000 each. Of course, I aspire to being able to afford a house like that myself one day, but we need to ensure that the right housing is being built for people in Eastleigh and Fareham town centres. Often, they are displaced down the road to Southampton and Portsmouth, or to other areas of the country with which they have no connection. That is simply not fair. We tabled the new clause to see, first, whether the Minister agrees with it—I suspect he will do more resisting—and secondly, whether he will try to ascertain how we genuinely improve the method for assessing local housing need. We had a brief debate about whether housing targets were warranted and whether people think they are good or bad. The Minister knows my position: I think they have been set for a particular reason, but that was a debate on a different clause. We want new towns to contribute towards meeting housing targets. As the Minister knows, new towns do not currently do that and are not included among those that can meet housing needs in local plans. New clause 49, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner tabled, would change that to include new towns, for several reasons. First, that would give certainty to constituents that once a local plan had been developed and proposals had gone forward for consultation, they would not be surprised by the Government’s suddenly announcing a new town. The Government are prone to doing that at the moment—I say that neutrally. When that happens, an area seems to have to take much more housing because the new town does not, on paper, contribute to the targets. I believe that, because new towns do not contribute to those targets, they suffer in terms of their services and infrastructure. The new clause would help with fairness in the system and with housing targets and planning. It is not nimbyism—I agree with the Minister that the terms yimby and nimby are reductive. To provide clarity for the consumer, as well as stability for local areas, the Government should make new towns contribute to housing targets. The Minister should view new clause 50 as productive. If he is worth his mettle, he will see that. Its purpose is to require local authorities to have a housing plan for their areas to inform their local plans. The housing plans would cover types of home, demographics and first-time buyer homes. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the local housing plan “must outline the number and type of homes…(a) required, and…(b) proposed to be built…in the authority’s area.” That would strengthen local authorities’ and local people’s ability to have a say about what they want to be built for them in their areas. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and I had an interesting meeting with several house builders. The Government should embrace and look to expand retirement villages in local plans. People are getting older, and many older people prefer to stay at home, but the system is slightly broken in terms of service charges and the leasehold model. That is not working.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way during a speech that is as eloquent as it is stylish. He makes a serious point. One change in the UK housing market is the collapse in the provision of small developers; something like 93% of homes are now built by very large housing providers. Particularly in pursuit of developing some of the smaller sites, in which the Minister has expressed a clear interest, we need to bring those types of development to market at scale. That is what new clause 75 seeks to do, and I hope that the Minister will—in a speech that will no doubt be equally eloquent and stylish as that of the shadow Minister—set out his thinking to ensure that that happens, so that the Bill does not become purely a charter for large developers while the huge number of smaller sites, which could deliver so much additional housing, are left undeveloped.

15:30:00

My hon. Friend raises a good point; in fact, we have tabled some amendments on targets regarding small and medium-sized enterprises. He is right that we must ensure that development is not just carried out by the usual large-scale developers; we must bring vibrancy into the sector and, more importantly, allow local authorities to make those decisions. On retirement villages, the system does not work, but new clause 50 would allow local authorities to have the authority to focus on the demographics and first-time buyers. It would ensure that SME builders are allowed to be designated by the local authority to build those houses. It is shameful that, for the first time in a long time, housing policy in this country does not have any incentives for first-time buyers. This point relates to the new clause, Ms Jardine. For the first time, we do not have incentives such as stamp duty relief or Help to Buy, so I hope that the Minister’s disruptive and radical solutions, which he teasingly announced, will include incentivisation. That would allow local authorities to say, “We have a lot of young people who should be entitled to be on the housing ladder; we want to put some first-time incentives into our local plans.”

On assistance for first-time buyers, is the lifetime ISA not still in operation?

Yes, the lifetime ISA is still in operation—the last Government brought it in—but it does not deliver the real numbers that we need, as the Help to Buy and stamp duty relief systems did. We brought those in, but they have been reversed.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Not yet. Those have been reversed by a lot of the things that this Government have done. For the first time, the sector does not have any incentivisation.

My hon. Friend has a quote.

If he has a quote, then I am not giving way. I say to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that the local housing plans that we are proposing must also include social housing. Local authorities need to put forward a proper housing mix.

I thank the hon. Member for giving way, and apologise to the rest of the Committee—I do not have a quote. Under its new leadership, his party is reflecting on the policies of the previous 14 years, so given that he is making an argument about first-time buyers and SME builders, why did the number of SME builders in the UK catastrophically decline over the past 14 years while the average age of the first-time buyer increased?

The hon. Gentleman does not have a quote, but his intervention is still misguided. He fails to realise that under the past 14 years of the Conservative Government, 800,000 people bought their first home through schemes such as Help to Buy and the stamp duty relief, and 2 million homes for first-time buyers were built. This Government have not even shown that they have the aspiration to match that, because they have cut a lot of the products that turbocharged first-time buyers’ getting on to the housing ladder. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that if he wants to, he can come for an appointment. By the way, we are under new leadership, and we are constantly reviewing our policies. We will be making announcements on the new products we will be bringing to people to fill the void that this Government have simply left for the first-time buyer.

The hon. Member has issued a paean to Help to Buy, which at the time it was introduced was identified as a policy that would likely drive up housing prices and do nothing to address the real problems in the housing market. As I have repeatedly emphasised in this Committee, those problems relate particularly to affordable and social rent housing. I have a quote for the hon. Member. A report published by the House of Lords Built Environment Committee in 2022 concluded that the “Help to Buy scheme…inflates prices by more than its subsidy value” and does “not provide good value for money, which would be better spent on increasing housing supply.” It pointed out that it cost the taxpayer £29 billion—more than £29 billion—over a decade, and that cash should have been used, as I have said, to replenish England’s falling stock of social housing. The London School of Economics has found that Help to Buy boosted house prices in London by 8%—just that policy boosted house prices in London by 8%— and it boosted developers’ revenues by 57%. Does the hon. Member recognise that it is not a panacea for the problems in the housing market that we face, and that investing in social rent housing should be our priority?

Order. Before we go on, could we keep to these new clauses, please, because we are getting a little off-track?

I will heed your advice, Ms Jardine, and bring this back to new clause 50. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire said there should be more social homes, but that comes under the remit of local authorities to set in their housing plan. In response to what she said about Help to Buy versus social homes being a panacea, I gently say to her that I never at any stage said that Help to Buy was a panacea. I said it was part of the mix in which we could help people, if they so wished, to get on to the housing ladder for the first time.

At the cost of social housing.

I have not finished my point, if the hon. Lady would let me do so. I feel like the Minister last week. I am saying that Help to Buy was part of a wider mix. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to focus on building more social housing, but I have a fundamental political disagreement with her, which is that social housing is not a panacea either. There are people who want to buy and there are people who want to be helped to buy, and that is why I say that, under this Government, the incentivisation for first-time buyers in the context of that argument has been abandoned, and that happened when we left office.

My point is brief: given that the Government have a limited amount of money available, should it not be spent on the things that are most effective in tackling the reality of the housing crisis? It is clear that Help to Buy was not that.

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Government should be focusing on social housing. However, to be fair to them, they have announced a huge amount of money for it, as we discussed in the Westminster Hall debate six or seven weeks ago. I cannot remember the figure, but it was a great figure for building social housing. They have gone further than the last Government did on social housing, and I said in that Westminster Hall debate that I welcomed the Minister’s and the Deputy Prime Minister’s commitment to building that affordable and social housing, but we need a housing mix that also allows for first-time buyers. That is the argument I originally made, and I do not think many people in the House or out there would disagree that we need such a mix. Briefly, new clause 75 relates to small site allocations in local plans. Currently, local planning authorities are expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans, unless they can provide a strong explanation why that is not possible. The Government have recognised the strength of feeling that small site policy generally is not working for both planning authorities and small and medium-sized developers, and they are strengthening the wording in the Bill. However, this new clause is designed to reverse that, and to up the percentage of small sites that should be accessible to SME developers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined in his intervention. I think the Minister should be able to agree to it. We discussed this morning how SME developers could be enabled to build more homes. There would be a requirement for 20% of housing to be on small sites, and: “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue or update guidance for local planning authorities regarding the identification of sites for housing development…The guidance must outline a requirement for at least 20% of an authority’s housing requirement to be accommodated on sites no larger than one hectare.” I hope that also shows many Members across the House that we believe in a solid and varied housing mix, built by a solid and varied housing sector. A number of these measures will help deliver just that. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts.

Before we go on, let me say that the Minister is under no obligation to discuss Help to Buy in his response.

I will obey your strictures, Ms Jardine, and avoid a debate on Help to Buy. I welcome hon. Members moving this group of new clauses, but I will be fairly brief. Although they may not want to, I am keen to debate all the other new clauses they have tabled and to make good progress through them. However, I am more than happy to address these new clauses. It will not surprise hon. Members that the Government do not feel able to accept the new clauses, but for good reason. I am happy to discuss why and to set out, where applicable, how our proposals to disrupt—these are not disruptive proposals, just to clarify that for the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley—the housing system, so that it functions better, play a part in that. I will first address new clauses 3 and 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington respectively. It is true that the Government have not yet set a social and affordable housing target, but we are clear that we need to significantly increase the number of social and affordable homes built each year. There is a particular focus on that under this Government, because I would argue that we have seen the engineered decline of social rented housing over the previous 14 years. That included not only the significant cuts the coalition Government made to affordable housing grant, but other measures that were introduced. I think, in particular, of the generous right-to-buy discounts introduced by Grant Shapps when he was Housing Minister, which have seen our stock sold off in too large a quantity. We are determined to build more and, through the changes we are making to right to buy, to retain more of our stock, while recognising that long-term tenants should still have a right to buy, where applicable. We do not believe that the new clauses are the right way forward. I think there is a difference—I am more than happy to debate the issue outside the Committee Room, but it is probably too extensive to go into now—between the standard method for calculating assessed housing need in the national planning policy framework, which sets overall assessed housing need numbers, with those being translated into local targets for housing as a whole, and affordable targets. As I said, we have not set a target yet, but we are clear, through the NPPF, that local authorities should, in producing their local plan, assess their need for affordable housing and social rented homes, and then plan to meet those needs. That includes establishing the total need for affordable housing and setting out the amount of affordable housing that should be secured on development. Those plans are then obviously independently examined as to whether they are sound. We have also made changes to the NPPF to provide greater flexibility for local authorities to deliver the right tenure mix to suit the particular housing needs in their areas. In addition, we are introducing new measures in the Bill to allow spatial development strategies to specify an amount or distribution of affordable housing to be delivered. I have also already committed to considering further steps to support social and affordable housing as part of our intent to produce a set of national policies for decision making in 2025. It is as part of those changes that further steps will, in many instances, best be taken, including on the content and timing of further updates to guidance. I really do recognise the point behind the new clauses, and we are keeping the matter under review, but for the reasons that I have given, I would ask that the new clauses are not pressed to a vote. I now turn to new clause 49. Our approach to housing targets has been put in place to support our ambition to build 1.5 million new homes over the next five years. In our view, that reflects the scale of house building needed to address the current acute and entrenched housing crisis in this country, which I think we all recognise, and we have heard the statistics. As things stand, there are nearly 30,000 people on my local housing waiting list, and huge numbers are in temporary accommodation. Everywhere I go, I say that this is an acute and entrenched crisis; in many parts of the country, particularly for those of us in urban areas, it is nothing short of an emergency, and we need to take steps to respond to that. The Government have been clear that new towns—this is our preferred approach as we proceed now—will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method across the country. I say that for the following reason, but with the caveat that we are keeping the matter under review: I do not know what precise list of recommended sites the new towns taskforce will bring forward, and some of those sites may build out in this Parliament, but a great number will either not have started building out in this Parliament or will only just have started. For that reason, I do not think it is reasonable, in many instances, to say that a significant proportion of the LHN we are asking local authorities to meet can be absorbed by a new town that is to come in a future Parliament.

15:45:00

Local plans are done over a 15-year period, so they are over multiple Parliaments. When the Government set the housing targets for local councils—if what the Minister has just said is the Government’s position on new towns—should the situation not be the same as for local plans? Broxbourne has a local plan over 15 years, which is three Parliaments, so all the housing targets given to local authorities will not be done in one Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Local plans are set over a longer time horizon. There is an issue, as he knows, with the number of local plans across the country that are up to date. There are other, corresponding issues about the date at which those local plans that are brought forward begin, and whether they are brought forward at all. Our general position—I will not go any further than that—is that we are keeping this under review. It has been our stated position so far that new towns will deliver over and above the targets produced by the standard method. When a new town might build out will be highly place-dependent; it will depend on the particular circumstances and delivery vehicle. Let us see what sites the new towns taskforce recommends. We are keeping this under review because we recognise that we need the right incentives in place to support proactive local authorities to work with us to bring new towns together. Although we have been clear that the site selection will ultimately be in the national interest, in terms of building these large-scale new communities out quickly and effectively, and ensuring that they are exemplary developments, it will obviously be far easier if local authorities are proactive and constructive.

The Minister is making a very important point. He will no doubt recall that, on a number of occasions, I have argued that those new towns should be within the housing targets. Our view is that if they are going to be successful, they need to be community led and embedded in the mission of that council area or community. To the Minister’s point about aligning incentives, we encourage him to continue to keep that matter under review and open for a further reason: the scale of the increase in allocations. For example, my council has to find a 46% increase in housing allocations, which is extremely challenging, as it is in areas where, for example, there are green belts or protected land. It is extremely challenging for some authorities to identify land for housing, and if that has to be on top of a new town, it will be even more challenging. I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is keeping the matter under review, and we encourage him to do that.

The hon. Gentleman’s position on the matter is very clear. We will keep under review how the taskforce’s recommendations on new towns interact with housing targets. Although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner is seeking, understandably, to prevent areas with a new town from taking unmet need from neighbouring areas, his new clause would have the effect of discouraging effective cross-boundary co-operation on a much wider range of matters, which could lead to issues with local plans in those areas. For that reason, I ask him not to press it. I turn to new clause 48. In our manifesto, the Government committed to restoring mandatory housing targets and reversing the supply-negative changes introduced by the previous Government in December 2023. In December 2024, we therefore implemented a new standard method for assessing housing needs that aligns with our ambition for 1.5 million new homes over this Parliament and better directs homes to where they are most needed and where housing is least affordable. The standard method is an important tool to ensure that housing is delivered in the right places, which is critical to tackling the chronic shortages facing the country across all areas and all tenures. We consulted extensively on our changes to the standard method. Our public consultation received more than 10,000 responses from a range of relevant parties, including 387 submissions from local authorities. Our response to the consultation sets out the evidence received and how the Government have responded to the points raised. We have also published revised guidance to support authorities utilising the standard method. Given the recent consultation exercise on the revised standard method, I do not believe that new clause 48, which seeks further consultation and procedural steps, is the right way forward. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it. I turn to the hon. Member’s new clause 50. National planning policy—specifically paragraph 72 of the NPPF—already expects local planning authorities to prepare strategic housing land availability assessments to provide evidence on land availability within their area. Authorities should then set out, through their local plans, a sufficient supply and mix of sites that can be brought forward over the plan period. Through this existing policy, local planning authorities are already expected to make an assessment of the number and type of homes that are required and proposed to be built in the authority’s area. I note the comment that several hon. Members have made about older people’s housing. I think it fair to say that the housing and planning system has not kept pace with demographic change, but that is why the Government are exploring the recommendations of the older people’s housing taskforce, for example. In addition, we are committed to introducing the new plan-making system, which includes the following provision set out in new section 15C(8) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as inserted by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023: “The local plan must take account of an assessment of the amount, and type, of housing that is needed in the local planning authority’s area, including the amount of affordable housing that is needed.” New clause 50 would therefore duplicate national planning policy and legislation that we anticipate will come into effect later this year. It would create new burdens on local planning authorities, with the effect of delaying plan making. It would also undermine the Government’s priority for extensive coverage of local plans across England, reducing much-needed housing supply. I ask the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner not to press it. I fully understand and support the principle behind new clause 75, tabled by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley. The Government fully recognise the benefits that small sites can offer in contributing to house building, diversifying the housing market and supporting faster build-out. We are therefore fully committed to increasing delivery on small sites and supporting our SME developers. This is a real priority for the Government. The statistics show that back in the 1980s SMEs built something like 40% of housing supply; the figure now is less than 10%. That is a large part of the reason that we are not bringing homes forward in the numbers we would want. Council house building is another example. Via the NPPF, local authorities are already expected to allocate 10% to small sites in local plans unless they can provide a strong explanation why this is not possible. If such an explanation proves wanting, the plan can be found unsound when it is examined by an independent inspector. In line with the thinking behind new clause 75, we consulted on strengthening that requirement by making it wholly mandatory in local plans. That was part of the summer 2024 consultation on the NPPF, but the responses we received were clear that making the target fully mandatory would be resource-intensive, would put significant pressure on local authorities, would be unworkable in many areas and might lead to delays in plan making. In the Government response to the NPPF consultation in December, we therefore made clear our intention to explore other options to support small site delivery as part of the upcoming national development management policies. I do not want to tease the Committee again, but details will be forthcoming and will be subject to consultation. Although I appreciate the principle behind new clause 75, I therefore do not believe that it is the best way to support small site delivery. I ask the hon. Member for Hamble Valley not to press it.

I am a pragmatist, so if the Minister says that he will make announcements in due course to strengthen what he already has a track record of doing, which is what the new clause seeks, we will welcome that. I must press him slightly, however. I grant that he has only been in his position for 10 months, but if the 10% is already in the NPPF and has not made any real change, and if he is reluctant to make legislative changes to enforce it, what other measures can he introduce to increase the number of houses that SME builders can build?

It is worth referring to the NPPF consultation in the summer and the Government response. We think that there was good reason not to make the 10% allocation mandatory. Local authorities, in particular, told us that they had concerns in that regard. There are many other things we could do. Without using this as a defence, in fairly short order the shadow Minister will see some of the measures that we want to introduce to support SME house builders. Access to land is a concern, and access to finance is another issue, as is the cumulative burden of regulation on SME house builders, which, for obvious reasons, are less able to cope with that than large-volume house builders. All of that is part of the answer, but I am sure we will have further debates on the matter once the Government have brought forth new measures in that area. I turn to new clauses 92 and 26. I share the commitment of the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington to enhancing provision and choice for older people in the housing market. I agree that the need to provide sufficient housing to meet older people’s specific needs is critical. We must ensure that the housing market is moving with demographic change. I also recognise that well-designed, suitable housing can improve the quality of life, health and wellbeing of older people, as well as supporting wider Government objectives. That is why the revised national planning policy framework already makes it clear that local authorities producing a local plan should, as I have said before, assess the size, types and tenure of housing for different groups in their communities, including older people, and reflect that in their planning policies. Supporting guidance also makes it clear that an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs should be considered from the early stages of plan making through to decision making. Furthermore, clause 47 contains provision for spatial development strategies to take account of that factor. It provides that SDSs “may specify or describe…an amount or distribution of affordable housing or any other kind of housing” if the provision of that housing is considered “to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.” One can well imagine how, in particular sub-regions of the country with high proportions of older people, SDSs may want to take particular account of that factor. We will of course consider how we can continue to make progress on delivering sufficient housing for older people, as we develop our long-term housing strategy, which we will publish later this year. I recognise that that will have benefits not only in meeting housing need for older people, but further down the housing chain, by unlocking homes that are inappropriate for older people. Those people may wish to move if they have a better offer and if challenges such as those mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, such as the excessive service charges on some older people’s residential housing, are dealt with. On new clause 26, I do not believe that introducing legislation to impose targets and capital funding for the affordable homes programme is the best way to incentivise the market to increase the supply of older people’s housing and later living homes. The Government’s view is that local housing authorities are best placed to bring forward the right amount of new housing for older persons and later living homes in their areas through the planning and care systems, and based on local need. The Government will obviously support them to do that when they set out the full details of a new grant funding programme to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme at the spending review on 11 June. Alongside wider investment across this Parliament, the new programme will help to deliver our commitment to the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. For that reason, I respectfully ask that none of the new clauses in this very large group are pressed to a vote.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I will briefly pick up on a couple of the issues he mentioned. On housing for older people, and new clause 92, I welcome the Government’s recognition that this is a serious issue, and that there are real benefits to enabling greater provision of housing for older members of the community—not least that it would also unlock housing for others. I look forward very much to the measures with which he is tantalising us coming forward. Likewise, as support for SME house builders is an issue close to the hearts of those in my constituency of North Herefordshire, I am on tenterhooks waiting for his forthcoming announcements. However, I do intend to push new clause 3 to a vote. The Minister has not explained why he thinks that mandatory housing targets are essential, but targets for affordable and social housing are apparently unacceptable.

In part, I would like to correct the hon. Lady, because at no point did I say that such targets are unacceptable; I said that we have not, to date, set one. I will give her an idea of some of the reasons. The hon. Member for Broxbourne will remember discussion of this in my evidence to the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee: there are factors that bear on the delivery of social and affordable housing that sit outside the control of a local authority area. For example, while a lot of social and affordable housing comes through section 106 agreements, large amounts come through grant funding from Government, and we cannot impose an arbitrary target without other measures, which the Government are bringing forward, being in place. We have not set a target for now; we think it is right that local authorities lead on assessing that need and ensuring that it is reflected in local plans. However, at no point did I say that it is unacceptable—

16:00:00

On a point of order, Ms Jardine, we had agreed, through the usual channels, that the Whip would move the Adjournment for the Committee at 4 pm—that was agreed with the Labour Whip yesterday. I appreciate that, for very good reasons, she is not here today. I also understand that Ministers may have a preference, given our progress, to continue a degree further. I will not move the Adjournment if the Ministers indicate that they wish to continue a little later, but may I seek your guidance, Ms Jardine, on how to resolve that, given that the schedule on which hon. Members’ diaries have been constructed included an adjournment at 4 pm?

I am sorry, but I have had no instruction about that. There has been no mention of it.

I am standing in as both Energy Minister and a Whip, Ms Jardine. As far as I know, the assumption was that we would have made speedier progress on various clauses today, and might have concluded line-by-line scrutiny by 4 pm. I do not think it was agreed that we would adjourn at 4 pm, but I am not party to any of those conversations, so I am afraid I cannot help. I think all other hon. Members have 5 pm in their diaries—and, given the lack of progress that we have made, we probably should proceed.

Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine, I accept that it was a discussion between me, as the Opposition Whip, and the Labour Whip yesterday, which is the usual channel through which times are agreed. That being the case, and in her absence, I will not move the adjournment, in order to enable the Committee to proceed. However, I respect that hon. Members may have to leave—including me, because I have built my diary around that agreement and I have childcare responsibilities.

Further to that point of order, Ms Jardine—I do not wish to waste any more of the Committee’s time—for my part, I am content for the Committee to sit until 5 pm to ensure that business gets through. However, given my own diary, I would take a dim view if the Government should seek to continue beyond 5 pm.

To clarify, the Committee sits until the Government moves the adjournment, so it is entirely up to the Government as to what they wish to do.

In all our diaries, the session was from 2 pm until 5 pm. That is when the Government will adjourn.

We will continue; I believe the hon. Member for North Herefordshire was speaking.

I was not speaking at the moment of the point of order—the Minister was. I confess have been slightly thrown by the intervention from the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, but I think that at the time of the point of order, the Minister was intervening on my summing-up speech, which was about pushing new clause 3 to a vote. I take the Minister’s point that he did not say that such targets were unacceptable; however, if he fails to support the new clause, he is effectively indicating that it is fine for the Government to specify where houses must be built, but not to say that local authorities should specify that certain types of housing must be built, as they see fit.

I would genuinely like to understand the hon. Lady’s thinking in this area. Does she think that it is the role of Government to prescribe, for every local planning authority in England, the precise mixes of tenure and affordable housing, and, for example, the number of older people’s homes they bring forward? It would be helpful to have clarity on where the line is drawn.

I am pleased to clarify that no, that is not my proposal, nor is it what the new clause says. It simply states: “Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of— (a) affordable housing, and (b) social housing.” The elaboration of those national and local plans remains in the hands of those who are responsible for producing them under existing legislation. There is nothing in the new clause that says that it has to be at a specific level. If the Government take the provision of affordable and social housing seriously, and recognise that the existing level of social rented housing—whether it is 3% or 6%—is nowhere near sufficient, then why not have the Bill specify that a quota for affordable and social housing should be set by the authorities that write the local plans? The new clause is moderate, reasonable and proportionate, and is entirely in line with the Government’s commitment to setting targets for housing overall. The net effect of not accepting the new clause may well be that the housing market continues to be just as distorted as it currently is, so I warmly encourage the Minister to consider supporting it. I think that others will find it difficult to understand why a Labour Government would not support targets for affordable and social housing—not specifying the numbers, but requiring that such targets are a necessary part of achieving what the Government say they want to achieve in improving access to housing. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

31|0|3|8|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

Before we move on, I think we could all do with a brief comfort break. I will suspend the sitting until 4.15 pm, which will give us eight minutes.

16:07:00

16:15:00

New Clause 5

Zero carbon standard for new homes

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

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

(b) include provision for solar power generation.

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 11—Accessibility requirements to be made mandatory— “The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act— (a) make provision for M4(2) (Access to and use of dwellings) in Schedule 1 of the Building Regulations 2010 to be made mandatory, and (b) issue guidance for developers and other relevant stakeholders on how M4(2) is to be complied with.” This new clause would make the existing Building Regulations requirements in relation to accessibility, which are currently optional, mandatory. New clause 110—Accessibility standards for new homes— It must be a condition of any grant of planning permission for new homes that— (a) all planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings); and (b) where an application for planning permission is for 20 or more homes, a minimum of 15% of planned homes meet Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings).”

It is a privilege to continue to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. New clause 5 would require building regulations to be made that require new homes to meet the zero carbon standard and to include renewable energy. Back in 2006, the then Labour Government rightly set out plans to achieve zero carbon in new housing. The same Government made a commitment in the carbon plan that there would be a regulatory requirement for zero carbon homes from 2016, which was the key date. That 2016 commitment was renewed by the coalition Government in 2011 and was included in the 2014 Infrastructure Bill. However, all the commitments to on-site efficiency standards and allowable solutions—the extra bit to make new homes zero carbon—were cancelled by the incoming Conservative Government in 2015, in a shocking retrograde step in addressing carbon emissions. We came so close to achieving the zero carbon homes standard back then. A cross-sector ministerial taskforce had been in place from around 2008. Two preparatory upgrades to building regulations had already been made—by the Labour Government in 2010, and by the coalition Government in 2013—and regulations were drafted for the 2016 upgrade that would have delivered zero carbon homes. Labour housing and planning Ministers who are now in the Cabinet—I will not name them in case they do not want to be named—chaired the ministerial taskforce and took the programme forward. Under the coalition Government, a predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), Andrew Stunell—to whom I pay tribute, and who introduced his first Bill on this subject back in 2004—continued the zero carbon homes programme as a Minister until 2015. We then had the complete cancellation of the programme in 2015. The Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit has estimated that, had the zero carbon standard been reached, residents would have paid £5 billion less in energy bills since 2016 as a result of living in better insulated and more energy-efficient homes. My noble Friend Baroness Parminter tabled a zero carbon homes amendment to the 2015-16 Housing and Planning Bill on Report, but the then Government did not support it. The Minister at the time in the Lords said that the Government would “introduce nearly zero energy building standards”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2016; Vol. 771, c. 925.] Of course, that falls well short. Undeterred, the Lords voted in favour again; the then Government ultimately tabled their own amendment that committed to reviewing energy performance requirements under building regulations, but they never did so—and, again, that fell a long way short. Almost 20 years on, we still do not have a zero carbon standard for new homes. It was, and still should be, a cross-party and cross-sector issue. There is a legal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in this country, and mandating zero carbon new homes would ensure that we do not make the task even harder for ourselves than it already is. Zero carbon homes insulate households not just in terms of energy but from fluctuations in energy prices. They reduce demand for electricity from the national grid and obviously reduce carbon footprint. Much more recently, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) tried again to acquire a degree of solar generation on new homes with a private Member’s Bill—his sunshine Bill. When the Minister responded to that debate back in January, he said that “the Government already intend to amend building regulations later this year...that will set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 652.] I am not sure why I am quoting the Minister to himself, but he will no doubt recall saying that rooftop solar deployment will increase significantly as a result. We look forward to a response on the new clause, which moves us towards and helps to deliver zero carbon homes. It would give the Government six months to set out regulations, and it merely seeks to hold the Minister to his word on the topic. The Minister ought to emulate once more the forward-looking approach of the Labour Government back in 2006, who committed this country to a trajectory of zero carbon homes. Almost 20 years on, we and many others want the certainty of a legislative provision to secure a zero carbon future for British housing and bring the benefits of solar generation to all residents. After all, we could have avoided building an entire new power station had this standard been introduced in 2016, as was proposed through cross-party agreement at the time. It is now almost a decade since the first zero carbon homes plan would have been introduced. This will be a lost opportunity if Parliament does not commit, finally, to taking that last step to make all new homes zero carbon.

I warmly welcome the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington. I refer colleagues to the fact that I have proposed a private Member’s Bill on exactly this topic—the Carbon Emissions from Buildings (Net Zero) Bill—and my very first Westminster Hall debate was on environmental building standards, so I am fully behind the new clause. It is essential that we build new housing to the best possible standards, and that we build new homes that are fully fit for the future. We know that doing so has social, environmental and economic benefits. It has social benefits, because it reduces people’s fuel bills and tackles issues such as mould in homes. It has environmental benefits, because, of course, there are huge energy efficiency advantages. It has economic benefits, not least because it is much more economically efficient in the long run to build houses effectively at the start so that we do not have to retrofit them years down the line. We already have a huge retrofit challenge in the coming years, so the very least we can do is to ensure that all new houses are built to zero carbon standards. The new clause refers specifically to solar power generation on roofs. I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement—I believe it was on local election day—that they are moving in that direction. However, in zero carbon design, other factors are much more important, including building orientation, design around transport and fabric first. I would like to discuss another factor, namely embodied carbon. I have tabled new clause 91 on the subject, but I am not sure that we will get there. When we talk about zero carbon, we need to recognise both the operational carbon, which is the carbon produced by a building during its lifespan—over the next, say, 80 years—and the embodied carbon in buildings, which is becoming a larger factor in the construction industry. We will soon be at the point where embodied carbon is half of the carbon associated with a building during its lifetime.

I thank the hon. Member for her lengthy and detailed explanation of zero carbon standards. Does she think it is appropriate to constrain the Minister to bringing forward building regulations within the short period of six months? Would that take longer? Not all of us have the same detailed and intricate knowledge of the standards that would be required, although I understand a great deal about building regulations.

In fairness, I did not draft the new clause. I recognise that it says six months, but as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington spoke about so eloquently, we had proposals for net zero carbon building standards on the table 10 years ago. This has been in development for 20 years. The sector itself is way ahead of Government on this. A huge amount of work has been done by the Low Energy Transformation Initiative, the Royal Institute of British Architects and all sorts of organisations to develop zero carbon building standards. Although bringing regulations forward within six months is arguably ambitious, it is not that the work is not available. The missing thing is political will, and political will can be found, as we have seen—we have passed a bill in less than 24 hours in this House within the last few weeks. Where there is political will, things can be done quickly. This is not an unreasonable proposal in this legislation. All the technical work is there; it is political will that is missing to bring forward a zero carbon standard for new homes. I could not more warmly welcome this new clause.

I wish to add some concise thoughts to support the new clause, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington, which requires new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for generation of solar power. My comments relate to the current political context in our country, which is—regrettably, in my view—more and more cynicism about net zero and the feeling that climate change mitigation is a negative, a drag on our lives and something that will cost us loads of money. These proposals on zero carbon homes and solar panels are the exact opposite of all that. They are a good example of how taking action on climate change and striving for net zero brings economic opportunity by stimulating supply chains and the labour force and helping people to reduce their bills, creating more money for them to spend on the wider economy. Of course, it helps our planet as well. We need to be far more radical on policies like these, and there needs to be far less delay. We really need to get on with it, because they benefit people, planet and economy.

I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling the new clause, and other hon. Members for speaking to it. They are all right to highlight the damage caused by the scrapping of the zero carbon homes standard back in 2015. It is worth recalling that that was widely criticised at the time, not only by environmentalists, but by house builders that had geared up to be ready to make the change. It is particularly regrettable, not least to me—I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, will feel the same—to confront the collective costs of the retrofit that is now required because those standards were not in place. The Government agree that reducing carbon emissions from new homes is a vital part of our ambition to reach net zero by 2050, and increasing solar power in the country must play an important role in that transition. However, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington said when he referenced the debate on the private Member’s Bill that we had a few months back, it is already the Government’s intention to amend building regulations later this year and set more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes. The future homes and building standards will set our homes on a path that moves away from relying on volatile fossil fuels. We are conducting further technical stakeholder engagement on solar energy following feedback from the future homes and building standards consultation. It is our responsibility to make sure that solar provision is included in the new standards in a way that is ambitious, but technically achievable. We are working through the details to get that right. It is also our responsibility to provide industry with sufficient time to prepare to ensure that any transition to new standards is as smooth as possible. The time spent carefully engaging with industry on the future homes standard makes me confident that a smooth transition to higher standards is entirely possible. Therefore, I can assure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to improving the energy efficiency of new homes and increasing solar panel deployment. Without seeking to tease hon. Members, who will not have to wait too long for further information in this area, we are doing that. I reassure the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington that very fruitful conversations continue with the hon. Member for Cheltenham. I recognise the leadership he has shown in bringing his private Member’s Bill, which has drawn more attention to the issue. For those reasons, and in view of our firm commitment to bring forward those future standards, I hope the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington might withdraw his new clause.

16:30:00

Before I respond to the Minister, I note that I should have spoken to new clause 11. I will not do so at length, but it would improve accessibility for new homes, make sure they are adaptable and introduce a minimum standard for them. On the zero carbon standard, I am grateful for the Minister’s generally positive response about the direction of travel, but so far, the rhetoric has been about getting us nearer to zero carbon. We need to be bold and decide that we are finally going to make new homes zero carbon. It is a small step to take. In previous legislation, there was an allowable solution that would compensate for the final balance of emissions in any new house that could not achieve it through fabric first. It is achievable, it needs to be done, and we will push new clause 5 to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

32|0|3|8|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 7

Sustainable drainage

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

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

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 34—Sustainable drainage (No. 2)— “The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act— (a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and (b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on— (i) how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments, and (ii) the minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage infrastructure.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments. New clause 89—Review of drainage performance of new developments— “(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development. (2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.” This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.

It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 7, which would require schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be commenced. My Liberal Democrat colleagues have pressed on this matter repeatedly over recent months and years, including in Westminster Hall. The schedule, which was never commenced, would require sustainable drainage systems—SuDS—to be provided in all but the most exceptional cases. It would establish a proper authority for regulations to ensure they are properly designed and maintained. It is not right that because of inadequate regulation and safeguards, the burden of poorly constructed drainage systems should fall on individuals who have saved for years to get their first home. Without proper enforcement of sustainable drainage, there is a real risk that the drive to increase housing numbers will exacerbate the current problems with drainage and flooding. After the 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt recommended the introduction of the provision. It was duly passed as part of the 2010 Act, but it was never commenced. By 2014, the Government had consulted on the necessary guidance and were on track for commencement before the end of 2015. In 2015, the consultation came to an end, the work came to an end and it was not commenced. The policy approach taken by the then Conservative Government was that we would deal with sustainable drainage through policy, and policy would be sufficient. A little later on, in their 2023 review of the implementation of schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they set out that a previous review had concluded that “non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems should be made statutory: as the ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult. The review also found that in general there were no specific checking regimes in place to ensure that SuDS had been constructed as agreed, leaving concerns about unsatisfactory standards of design and construction, and of difficulties of ensuring proper maintenance once the developer has left the site.” If only that schedule had been brought into effect, a great deal of flooding of people’s homes would have been avoided. In the past, we have had a body of law to control our sewage and drainage system, originally from the Public Health Act 1936, which dealt with any kind of drain that is “communicating with a public sewer”, in the words of the Act. But SuDS are a new way of doing things, and they do not have the same body of regulation. There is therefore no longer any reason why schedule 3 should not be commenced as soon as possible, if not immediately. It should not take another flood to make that happen. It is time to implement the recommendations of the 2008 review, the Government’s consultation response in 2014, the 2023 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review that I quoted, and schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 before our constituents find themselves forced into communicating with a public sewer in their homes and gardens in a way that is all too close and personal.

I commend the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington on tabling the new clause. It is very similar to new clause 34, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). My hon. Friend’s goes slightly further, in that it would ensure “minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance”, but we welcome the sentiment, and we understand why the hon. Gentleman and the Liberal Democrats have tabled the new clause. This is an issue that many of us have faced. The hon. Gentleman and I both attended a Westminster Hall debate about problems with drainage in new developments. I said then that in our constituencies, several of us could point to new developments in which planning officers and constituents had no confidence, even though the planning authority had acted entirely appropriately within the guidelines. I think particularly of Botley parish council in my constituency and Boorley Green, where development is going on along the River Hamble and further up into Winchester Street. Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was supposed to help with the expected standards. With many new developments, a lot of the water companies are not sufficiently accountable to the people they serve. Local authorities are slightly constrained by the planning system from making the changes that they could make to help the long-standing flooding problems, if schedule 3 was brought in. I welcome the new clause, and it will have our support. We will work with the hon. Gentleman on Report to strengthen the new clause. I do not mean that there is anything wrong with it, but I would like it to be combined with new clause 33 and the standards on ongoing maintenance. I hope the hon. Gentleman takes that as a helpful suggestion, and we look forward to supporting his new clause.

I rise to speak in support of new clause 7. I have spoken about flooding in the main Chamber at least five times. Constituents have come to see me in my surgeries to tell me that they have been flooded out of their new homes only six months after they were built, because of a lack of appropriate drainage. As climate change brings us greater extremes and severity of weather, we know that frequent flooding will become even more of a problem, so it is imperative that any new building is flood resilient. I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clauses 85 and 86, which I will move if we have time tomorrow or on Thursday. They are also designed to prevent building on flood plains, and to ensure that flood resilience measures are in place for all new buildings. It is quite extraordinary that 15 years after SuDS were provided for in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, they have still not been brought in. I add my voice to those of my Lib Dem and Conservative colleagues urging the Government to support the new clause, and to ensure that all new building is genuinely flood resilient and does not contribute to further problems downstream for other areas, housing or infrastructure.

I rise to speak to new clause 89, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo). It would support what other hon. Members have been seeking with their amendments by requiring developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and by clarifying that it is very much for the developer to take remedial action when such drainage performance is found to be inadequate. My hon. Friend tabled the amendment for a range of reasons, not least because the new house building in his constituency, and indeed in mine, has included a number of areas where drainage installation has not been done adequately. There have subsequently been lots of issues with the local authority not being willing to adopt because of that; then there has been all the usual argy-bargy that many of us are familiar with between developer and local authority. The amendment also speaks to a concern of many residents that the scale of house building and the drainage facilities put in place contribute to local flood risk and flooding incidents. A couple of examples from my constituency: the Anderson Place estate in East Hanney and the Childrey Park estate of East Challow have had both flooding issues and those arguments between local authority and developer. For those reasons, we have tabled new clause 89 to put greater onus on developers to ensure that they are installing drainage to the required standard, and that assessment takes place subsequently within five years.

I thank the hon. Members for proposing these amendments. Once again, the Government very much sympathise with their objectives. I personally found the recent Westminster Hall debate extremely useful in clarifying my thinking on this matter and the wider issue of water infrastructure. The Government are strongly committed to requiring sustainable drainage systems in new development. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire cites 15 years—we have had 10 months, and within that time we have already taken steps to improve the delivery of SuDS through the planning system. The revised national planning policy framework, published in December, expanded the requirement to provide SuDS to all development with drainage implications. The framework now also makes clear that SuDS provided as part of proposals for major developments should have maintenance arrangements in place to ensure an acceptable standard of operation for the lifetime of the development. The Government also provide planning guidance on sustainable drainage, which supports policies contained within the NPPF. Some time has passed since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 came into force, and it is important that we consider the most efficient and effective way of securing its objectives in the current circumstances. More specifically, better delivery of SuDS may be achieved by continuing to improve the delivery of the current policy-based approach, rather than commencing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. I believe that the underlying ambition is shared. We want to improve the take-up of SuDS, but the means of achieving that are under active consideration. I understand why in all these debates hon. Members wish to push the Government because they feel an urgency to use this legislation to enact every change to the planning system that they want to see. However, I say to the hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington and for North Herefordshire that a final decision on this particular matter will be made in the coming months. I hope that on that basis they will feel able to withdraw their amendments. I turn to new clause 89. It seeks, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage just set out, to introduce a new requirement for developers to undertake a review of the drainage performance of a development five years after being built and to take action when it is needed to improve the development’s drainage performance. As part of the planning application process, developers will need to set out plans for the long-term management of a site, including for drainage infrastructure. That will be agreed as part of the planning permission for the use of the planning conditions or section 106 agreements, and can include arrangements for agreed bodies to take on the management of drainage infrastructure. When a developer proposes to use SuDS as part of a development, it is clear in planning practice guidance that the proposal should include arrangements for their long-term maintenance. The arrangements will include setting out an agreed body that will adopt the SuDS once the development is completed and take on the maintenance of this infrastructure.

16:45:00

It is the responsibility of any agreed bodies to take forward the ongoing monitoring and maintenance of drainage infrastructure on a site, taking into account drainage performance. Because existing legislation and policy already ensures that the drainage performance of new development is reviewed and maintained effectively by appropriate agreed bodies, I ask the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington not to press his new clause to a Division. Some of the specific matters that came out of the Westminster Hall debate, as well as matters raised in other conversations I have had, are very much being reflected on by the Department to ensure that adequate water infrastructure is put in place and maintained in new developments.

I genuinely appreciate the Minister’s constructive response; I know that he is interested in and concerned about the issue. We all know that the industry will have objections to new regulations—back in the day, house builders objected to being required to put bathrooms inside houses. Objections will come as surely as night follows day. Previous Governments responded by saying, “Don’t worry; we can just change policy—it will be fine.” The 2023 report explicitly states that the policy approach has not worked. We have had 10 years of experimentation and a full Government review by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the response was that the current ambiguity makes the role of the planning authority very difficult—essentially, it has not worked. Relying on policy is also a departure from the tried-and-tested approach in which things to do with the physical structure of the building—drainage and all those matters—come under the building regulations. All drainage matters come under the building regulations, so why would sustainable drainage not be covered by regulations but be a matter of policy? That leaves the ambiguity that the DEFRA report points out, and it simply has not worked. For all those reasons, I cannot see any alternative to our pressing the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

33|0|5|7|The Committee divided:|Question accordingly negatived.||0|0

New Clause 9

Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being

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

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—Purposes and principles to be followed by parties exercising planning or development functions— “(1) Any party exercising any function in relation to planning and development must— (a) have regard to the purpose of the planning system outlined in subsection (2), and (b) apply the principles outlined in subsection (3) for the purposes of achieving sustainable development. (2) The purpose of the planning system is to promote the spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals. (3) The principles are— (a) living within environmental limits; (b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society; (c) achieving a sustainable economy; (d) promoting good governance including promoting democratic engagement and accountability; and (e) using sound science responsibly. (4) For the purposes of this section, ‘sustainable development’ means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while ensuring the health and integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the species within them, as well as the wellbeing of future generations.” The new clause would define the purpose of the planning system and of planning as promoting the efficient spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals. New clause 41—Exercise of planning functions to be compatible with the purpose of planning— “(1) Any person or body exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with the purpose of planning as set out in subsection (2). (2) The purpose of planning is to manage the development and use of land in the long-term public interest. (3) Anything which— (a) addresses the long-term common good and wellbeing of current and future generations, (b) has full regard to the achievement of the commitments in and under the Climate Change Act 2008 or the Environment Act 2021, (c) is in accordance with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and (d) delivers fair planning processes that are open, accessible and efficient, is to be considered as being in the long-term public interest. (4) In this section, a planning function means any statutory power or duty relating to the use or development of land in England.” This new clause would introduce a purpose of planning and provide that anyone exercising a planning function must do so in a manner that is compatible with that purpose.

New clause 9 concerns healthy homes, and would ensure that national and local government plans are designed with a clear and explicit aim of improving the physical, mental and social health and wellbeing of people in those homes. We cannot afford to keep building homes that make people ill. It is instructive to recall that the original planning system and the original planning Act emerged from the garden city movement, the public health movement and the desire to enable people to escape from slums. The first planning Act was the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act 1909, which was mainly concerned with public health. We need to re-establish the link between planning and health if we are going to improve our health outcomes, prevent health inequalities and address the sicknesses in our society. Right now, 3.5 million homes, which are lived in by around 15% of households, fail to meet the decent homes standard. That is not just a housing issue; it is a public health issue. According to the Resolution Foundation, poor-quality housing doubles the likelihood of someone experiencing poor general health. It costs the NHS £1.4 billion a year to treat to treat and costs society an estimated £18.5 billion, because it damages productivity, education outcomes and life chances. If we are serious about levelling up and addressing health inequalities, we must start with the homes that people live in. We know that deregulation has not worked. The extension of permitted developments under the last Government allowed the conversion of offices and shops into substandard housing, flats without windows, and rooms too small for someone to stretch their arms out without touching the walls. Those were “homes” in name only. If the Government enact any further changes to permitted development rights, they should at least adopt this new clause to ensure that those homes are healthy, regardless of how they are built. Even the revised national planning policy framework, while nodding towards health inequalities, includes no effective levers to address them or to force those making development decisions to consider health outcomes. A vague instruction to have regard to local health inequalities is simply not enough. Similarly, while the decent homes standard refers to health outcomes, it deals only with fixing the dangers in the existing rental stock. We need to consider health outcomes during the development stage to prevent dangers, rather than considering them only when they have already become a problem. This new clause would do that. It is about designing out risks from the start and embedding health into the DNA of planning once again, and into development policy. This new clause is backed by the Town and Country Planning Association, which says it will establish clarity on housing standards and wider development quality, setting a level playing field for industry. That is fundamental for promoting positive health outcomes across all new homes and communities. Surely, it is time that we moved from building homes quickly and at any cost to building them well and making them healthy for the people who live in them. I urge the Committee to support new clause 9.

I rise to speak to new clauses 14 and 41, which have been grouped with new clause 9 and address the same question of what the purpose of planning should be. To be clear, new clause 14 has the support of the Town and Country Planning Association, and new clause 41 has the support of the Royal Town Planning Institute. Indeed, there is a widely held view in the planning sector that it is necessary to have a clear statutory purpose for planning, both to guide planning decisions and to make it more publicly understandable what planning does and what it is for. The suggestion in these new clauses is that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill should take the opportunity to set out a clear purpose for planning, based on the UN’s sustainable development principles, to which, of course, the UK Government are a signatory and make fairly frequent reference. That would offer an opportunity to build consensus around the purpose of planning in all its diverse glory—not just in plan making, but in decision making. What we have seen with the Government’s emphasis on reframing national planning policy in the NPPF as being all about economic growth is not just bad for the environment but risks missing out on the opportunity to ensure that all planning policy and decisions are good for people, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington just explained. Creating a statutory purpose for planning would give a clear foundation for national planning policy and would help to prevent the sudden shifts in national policy direction that have been a feature of the system since 2010. As it currently stands, planning law has only an exceptionally weak duty: “to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development”. That duty is limited only to plan making and does not extend to decision making. That existing duty contains no definition of sustainable development and makes no reference to the internationally recognised framework of the sustainable development goals. I feel that in framing a vision for our future development, as outlined in new clause 14, a specific requirement should be placed on the Secretary of State to have special regard for the wellbeing of present and future generations in planning. Planning decisions are, by definition, long term. The world we inhabit today is shaped by planning decisions made decades in the past, so it can only be right that we explicitly recognise the needs of children and young people in both plan making and decision making. Although new clauses 14 and 41 have slightly different wording, their intention is effectively the same, which is to ask the Secretary of State to use the Bill as an opportunity to set out a statutory purpose for planning that specifically frames all planning decisions around the broad concept of sustainable development, as very clearly articulated in the SDGs and elsewhere.

We can all agree that the design and use of the built and natural environment are major determinants of health and wellbeing. That is why this important matter is addressed in the planning system through both policy and guidance such as the NPPF and PPG, which includes the national design guide and the national model design code. The hon. Lady said that the Government have made the NPPF all about economic growth. No, we are very clear that we made changes to ensure that the NPPF is pro-growth, but the NPPF makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, with a fundamental part of this being to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities.

Will the Minister set out his definition of sustainable development?

I will do better than that and direct the hon. Lady to the appropriate paragraphs in the NPPF, which set out a clear explanation of what is meant by the purpose and the presumption that runs through it. The framework further sets out that planning policies and decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places that promote social interaction. This includes opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, and that enable and support healthy lives—both by promoting good health and preventing ill health, especially where this addresses identified local health and wellbeing needs and seeks to reduce health inequalities. The framework also recognises that access to a network of high-quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and physical activity is important for health and wellbeing and it is clear that local plans should seek to meet the identified need for open space, sport and recreation facilities and should seek opportunities for new provision. It is a legal requirement to have regard to national policies and guidance issued by the Secretary of State, such as the NPPF and the national design guide, when preparing a local or strategic plan. Such policies and guidance are also material considerations in planning decisions, where relevant. Therefore, while I understand the intent behind this amendment, we are clear that these important matters are best recognised and addressed through national planning policy and guidance, all of which must be considered in the preparation of local plans and, where relevant, in planning decisions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for tabling new clauses 14 and 41. They are right that planning should serve a clear purpose, which is why its purpose is front and centre of our NPPF to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, including the provision of homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. What that should mean in practice is set out through the policies in the framework, and through the policies in the development plan for each area. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan in question, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF is one of those material considerations and must also be taken into account in preparing the development plan. Furthermore, there are already well established mechanisms in place to enable communities to engage with planning processes and shape the development that takes place in their area. This includes through statutory consultation, which local planning authorities are required to undertake, as the hon. Lady will be aware, for both plan making and when determining planning applications.

Would the Minister care to explain why the TCPA and the RTPI feel that the existing framework is not adequate?

No, in short, and I will give the hon. Lady my explanation. I had extensive debates during the last Parliament with the TCPA and Lord Crisp, who is a proponent of healthy homes. I well understand where the TCPA is coming from, but I am not going to purport to set out the reasons why it thinks this issue is important. I am setting out the Government’s position, and why we think that existing national planning policy and guidance are sufficient in this area. However, I accept there may be a genuine difference about how necessary and beneficial it is to define a clear purpose of the planning system. The Government have a view on that, and I concede that the TCPA and others will continue to campaign in this area.

17:00:00

Lastly, I think we should be wary of setting broad principles—and this is, I suppose, one of the reasons why the Government feel the need to resist these new clauses—that plans and individual planning decisions would be required to comply with as a matter of law. In our view, this would likely fuel a risk-averse approach and a rise in legal challenges, so risk blocking or delaying the sustainable development we all want to see.

I simply make the brief point that there is a whole swathe of statutory requirements on planning—good design, sustainable development, mitigating climate change—and such legal duties can be included in planning legislation.

I venture to say that the hon. Gentleman almost makes my point for me. There is a whole layering of statute, policy and guidance, and if we had more time, we could have a more extensive debate on the merits or otherwise of including a clear purpose of the planning system. I am sure there would be lots of disagreement about what that purpose should be. However, on the principle, as I have set out, the Government think that planning policy and guidance are adequate to achieve the outcomes we all want to see achieved through the planning system.

I call Gideon Amos.

Thank you, Ms Jardine. You have reminded me that I have the right to sum up, which I am happy to forgo in the interests of time. We will not push new clause 9 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

17:02:00

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Michael Shanks.)

Written evidence reported to the House

PIB131 SSEN Transmission

PIB132 Anna Leach

PIB133 MHE Consulting Ltd