Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, who makes a very good point. The Conservative party does not want development on the greenbelt, and it does not want urban and suburban intensification; in short, it does not want homes brought forward in the volume required to meet housing demand across the country. My hon. Friend asks a specific question about accessible housing. The changes we are making through the draft framework will set new, higher requirements for authorities to deliver more accessible housing. They include proposals for 40% of new builds to meet mandatory accessibility standards, and proposals to ensure that local plans provide for wheelchair accessible homes. I stress that that is a minimum, not a target. It will drive up the provision of accessible housing overall—I note that some local plans at present have 0%—while ensuring that different levels of local need are met.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I would say two things in response to that question. The Government have already allocated significant funding for planning capacity and capability in local departments. The Chancellor in the recent Budget allocated another £48 million. We are making £8 million of that available today to support local authorities with development management. In general, this framework will give a major boost to rural economies. We are making it very clear that development that supports farm modernisation and food production, and that allows rural businesses to grow, should be supported.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Historical Interim Development Orders · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) on securing this important debate. She has made a strong case on behalf of her constituents in Pilning and other nearby communities, who, while not directly affected, still have an interest in this matter. I appreciate fully the concerns she raises in respect of historical interim development orders on the communities she represents. In the time available, I will seek to provide her with a number of reassurances, although I suspect I will not be able to assuage her concerns in full, for reasons that will become clear. Planning is principally a local activity, and I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government want local communities to be at the heart of the planning system. That is why we have made a clear commitment to achieving universal coverage of local plans that are shaped by early and effective engagement with communities, and that is why we continue to explore ways to enhance community engagement planning, including through greater digitalisation of the system. The particular issue that is the subject of this debate has a long and complex planning history, as the hon. Lady made clear in her remarks. Although I am obviously unable to comment on individual planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial role of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system, I will seek to respond to the concerns she has raised in general terms and, to the best of my ability, assuage them, although I suspect that I will be unable to do so in full, for reasons that I will now set out. Let me make some general comments about planning permissions. The hon. Lady has acknowledged this point, but there really is no way of tackling this subject without dry commentary on some of the historical elements of planning law, but such is the debate we are having—it is an important one. For reasons that I trust are obvious, it is vital that the planning system provides certainty on what can be built and where. It is axiomatic, but nevertheless worth stating, that the grant of planning permission for development is a right to develop. It is important that developers and landowners have the certainty that a planning permission, once granted, will not be readily removed or altered, given the considerable investment committed to it as part of the development process. When the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was enacted to establish the planning system as we know it, it was determined that the grant of planning permission would be in perpetuity unless it was explicitly for temporary development. No provision was made for the abandonment or lapse of a planning permission in instances where development did not occur. This issue was partly— but not entirely—addressed in the Town and Country Planning Act 1968, which required, through a mandatory commencement condition, that development must begin within five years in relation to full permissions. The same Act extended that requirement to earlier permissions that had not been built out before 1968. Since then, the default commencement period in England has been reduced to three years for full permissions, to ensure timely build-out of developments. If a development is commenced, the planning permission remains extant, and it is often possible for a developer to carry out the remainder of the development many years later. However, as the recent Supreme Court judgment in Hillside Parks Ltd v . Snowdonia National Park Authority made clear, it is not lawful to carry out development if the development has become physically impossible to implement—for instance, if a planning permission for another subsequent development has been implemented instead. This means it is likely that many historical planning permissions that have not been implemented cannot now in practice be lawfully carried out, as subsequent development has since been carried out so as to render further development under the historical permission physically impossible. That said, the Government recognise that it is still possible to carry out the development granted by a small proportion of historical planning permissions—for instance, if there has been a partial commencement. We also recognise that the conditions and obligations related to the development of these historical permissions may not be as comprehensive as a recent permission for the same development would be. Local planning authorities do have the power, as a last resort, to revoke or modify planning permissions that could be used for historical planning permissions under section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Secretary of State must confirm any revocation or modification, and there must be sound planning reasons for taking such action. As the local planning authority would in such circumstances be unilaterally affecting a land interest’s right to develop, it is worth making clear that in such a scenario the planning authority in question would also be left liable to provide compensation to the land interest for any expenditure incurred in carrying out works and other sustained loss or damage. Another tool potentially available to local planning authorities is a completion notice under section 94 of the Act. This can be used where development has begun under a planning permission but the LPA is of the opinion that the development will not be completed within a reasonable period. In such circumstances the local authority can serve a completion notice, which works on a “use it or lose it” basis, with the planning permission ceasing to have effect at the end of a specified period of at least 12 months. As part of this Government’s commitment to provide greater transparency and accountability in respect of build-out rates on housing sites and to speed up the building of homes, we intend to implement the changes made to relevant completion notice legislation under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. This will remove the need for Secretary of State confirmation of a completion notice, making it easier for local planning authorities to use such notices. It is worth me making some brief remarks about outline planning permissions. As the House will know, outline planning permission establishes the principle of development, on the condition that subsequent reserved matters are to be approved at a later date. When considering an application for the approval of reserved matters, the decision maker must consider these matters of detail within the context of the outline planning permission. Although this does not allow decision makers to revisit the principle of development or the parameters set by the outline permission, local planning authorities can ensure through reserved matters applications that the development constitutes sustainable development and that amenity, design quality, highways safety and flood risk issues are fully considered. Finally, let me turn to community engagement. Where a new planning permission is sought, planning law requires that local planning authorities provide the local community with the opportunity to make representations about the application through a range of methods. As the principle and therefore substantive planning matters have typically been established through the outline planning permission, there is no legal requirement for local planning authorities to consult on an application for approval of reserved matters. However, I am aware that where the matters raised would warrant input from the local community, local planning authorities do carry out engagement with communities when assessing applications for the approval of reserved matters. In the unique circumstances of an historical planning permission, I would encourage local planning authorities to carry out such engagement. Where relevant considerations are raised by local residents, they must be taken into account by the local planning authority. However, the weight attached to a particular condition is a matter of judgment for the local authority as the decision maker in the first instance. Although there are clearly cases where historical planning permissions may still be implemented years after they were granted, the Government consider them to be extremely rare. To the extent that such planning permissions remain extant after the development has been commenced, they cannot automatically be extinguished. As I have set out, local planning authorities do have the power to revoke or modify incomplete planning permissions, or issue commencement notices, but only in specific circumstances. I appreciate, therefore, that the planning system as it has developed in the post-war period and as it is currently constituted does not provide a ready solution for the specific challenge outlined by the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate. With a view to exploring what more might be done within the constraints of the current system, I am happy to ensure that the hon. Lady gets a meeting early in the new year to give the matters relating to these specific applications the due consideration they warrant. As they relate to a specific application, I hope she will accept that in the first instance it would be appropriate for them to be with officials in my Department rather than me personally, but I will make sure that that meeting covers the analogous points she made about mineral permissions and IDO processes. I will also seek, through my officials, to ensure that she gets the requisite engagement with the relevant statutory consultees. In this instance, that will mainly be the Environment Agency, but she is more than welcome to write to me with other bodies that she wants to be engaged, particularly on the flooding issues she raised. To conclude, I commend the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate once again for securing this important debate. I thank her for the clarity with which she set out her constituents’ concerns and the constructive manner in which she engaged with me on the subject. I will ensure that she gets the required engagement with my Department to explore what might be done in respect of the concerns that she has so ably set out. Question put and agreed to.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment 33, but proposes amendment (a) to the Lords amendment. Today is a pivotal day, because, subject to agreement from this House—and, in due course, the other place—on a single remaining issue, the Government’s landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill will have completed all its stages and will therefore shortly become law. That moment will be a hugely significant one for our economy, because this legislation will facilitate a step change in the delivery of the new homes and critical infrastructure that our country so desperately requires. Let me briefly remind the House again why this Bill is so important. When it comes to house building and the provision of major economic infrastructure, the status quo has demonstrably failed. The process of securing consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects is far too slow and uncertain, and is constraining economic growth and undermining our energy security. The current approach to development and the environment too often sees both sustainable house building and nature recovery stall. In exercising essential local democratic oversight, planning committees clearly do not operate as effectively as they could, and local planning authorities do not have adequate funding to deliver their services. The compulsory purchase order process is patently too slow and cumbersome, and development corporations are not equipped to operate in the way that we will need them to in the years ahead. It is abundantly clear that the lack of effective mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning mean that we cannot address development and infrastructure needs across sub-regions as well as we otherwise might. We can and we must do things differently, and this Bill will enable us to do so. That is why we have been so determined to ensure that we can make use of its provisions as soon as possible, and why I am delighted that, following today’s debate, it is expected to return for a final time to the other place before becoming law. To that end, I hope hon. and right hon. Members will lend their support to Government amendment (a). Before I turn to the detail of that amendment, let me put on record once again my profound thanks to Baroness Taylor for so ably guiding the Bill through its stages in the House of Lords and for undertaking such broad and extensive engagement with peers throughout its passage. Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure, and Government amendment (a) seeks to give effect to that change. In the debate on consideration of Lords amendments on 13 November, I argued that the affirmative procedure was unnecessary in this instance, in the light of the multiple rounds of consultation that would take place before the relevant regulations were laid. However, I acknowledge the strength of feeling in the other place on this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment to give effect to the intention of Lords amendment 33, ensuring that the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation is subject to the affirmative procedure. I thank Lord Lansley for his engagement on this issue, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for his contributions to previous debates on these regulations. Government amendment (a) simply removes the unnecessary provisions in Lords amendment 33 in respect of future regulations, for which there are already powers in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Set alongside the existing safeguards built into the legislation, including a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft regulations before they come into effect, I hope the House will agree that Government amendment (a) will ensure that an appropriate amount of parliamentary scrutiny and engagement is able to take place on these provisions ahead of implementation. I urge the House to support Government amendment (a), and I look forward to receiving the support of Members.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, I will close what has been an extremely brief but nevertheless necessary and important debate, which has moved us another step closer to the Bill becoming law. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken for their contributions. In the time I have available to me, I will seek to respond to the points that were made. The concerns expressed by the Opposition and Liberal Democrat spokesmen have generally been well rehearsed throughout the passage of the Bill, and I do not expect that I will convince them of the merits of its main principles. There is still time for them to change their minds and recognise the benefits that the Bill will bring in terms of productivity, prosperity and economic growth across the country, but the Bill has been debated at length, so I do not intend to comment too widely on those general points—and there is, of course, only a single amendment before us. However, I will make a couple of comments on some points that were raised. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) referred to the commitment that we made in the other place, and he is absolutely right. On 24 November, during consideration of Commons reasons and amendments in the House of Lords, the Government made it clear that “the first EDPs will address nutrient pollution only” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 24 November 2025; Vol. 850, c. 1158.] and that Ministers would return to the House once those first EDPs are in place to issue a statement on their progress. Only at that point would the Secretary of State be able to take forward any other EDPs on environmental issues. I made, and stand by, the commitment that chalk streams will be explicitly recognised in national planning policy. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) will not have to wait long to find out what that will entail, but I take on board his points about what he expects to see on chalk streams. On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the private sector, which was well made, we recognise the importance and increasing role that the private sector, including land managers, habitat banks and ecological consultancies, must play in supporting nature’s recovery. Such businesses also play a crucial role in the planning system more generally. The Bill has been drafted to enable delegation and partnership working with third parties. That may apply both to the development of EDPs, including ecological surveys and impact assessments, and in the undertaking and monitoring of conservation measures. EDPs obviously also represent an opportunity for growth in nature service markets and revenue diversification for farming and land management businesses. I hope that he is somewhat reassured on that point. On the substantive issue of the national scheme of delegation, we absolutely agree that planning is principally a local activity. Decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the Government are determined to ensure that every part of the country has an up-to-date local plan that is developed through significant resident engagement, and why the Government of course believe that planning committees have an integral role in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, it is vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on the applications that really warrant member input and not revisiting the same decisions. As hon. Members know, we have undertaken a technical consultation on the national scheme of delegation. We got a significant response: nearly 600 responses from local planning authorities and developers alike. Broad support was expressed for the tiered approach that we have proposed, but we will take all that feedback into account in drafting the regulations to come, which we expect to lay in the spring. Just to make it clear once again, the draft regulations will be subject to public consultation, and we will respond to the technical consultation at the same time as we publish the draft regulations for consultation. This landmark piece of legislation will enable us to overturn a failing status quo that has hampered the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and thereby impeded progress towards greater prosperity and rising living standards. I am immensely proud of having developed the Bill and taken it through Parliament. As I argued on Second Reading, 14 years of Tory failure “left the country with a belief that nothing works, that nothing gets built, and that Britain can no longer do big things. This Government refuse to accept the stagnation and decline we were bequeathed. We were elected on the promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this…Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal.” —[ Official Report , 24 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 745.] It would be remiss of me to conclude my remarks without thanking those who have made a vital contribution to the Bill. I express my gratitude to all hon. and right hon. Members and peers in the other place who engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. The expertise and insight that has been brought to bear in both Houses has strengthened the Bill in a number of important respects. I thank the shadow Front-Bench teams for the constructive way in which they approached scrutiny in Committee and throughout all stages. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her unwavering support in the Bill’s early stages, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), the Secretary of State, for his firm support over recent months. I thank all stakeholders, including a wide range of development industry experts and organisations and environmental non-governmental organisations, which have engaged extensively with my Department to shape the Bill. Finally, I thank all the talented officials in my Department who have devoted considerable time and energy to this landmark piece of legislation. I particularly thank the Bill team, ably led first by Alex Bush and now by Holly Harper; expert officials, including Will Burgon, Alicia Ford, Guy Skelton and Andrew Short; and past and present members of my private office, including Jim Carroll, Grace Doody, Josh Gray, Gabe Allason and Matt Davies, for helping to deliver the Bill in record time. The imminent prospect of this Bill receiving Royal Assent is obviously only a beginning. Once the Bill becomes law, we need to implement its provisions. In that regard, the House should be in no doubt that we intend to move quickly, so that we can realise the full benefits of this legislation for productivity, prosperity and living standards across the whole UK. I very much look forward to working with hon. and right hon. Members, as well as stakeholders, as we progress the Bill’s implementation over the coming months. Question put and agreed to. Mental Health Bill [Lords]: Programme (No.2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Mental Health Bill [ Lords ]: Consideration of Lords Message (1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement. Subsequent stages (2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. (3) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— (Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I assure the hon. Lady that I understand the potential constraint that water may provide. The Cambridge Growth Company, working with local partners in Greater Cambridge, is looking at solutions that can be taken forward. As I say, water efficiency, as well as investment, is needed for infrastructure of the kind that she mentions. We are recognising the importance of the natural environment by confirming that a new national forest will be established in the corridor to support nature recovery, create green jobs and ensure access to nature for local communities. That is currently in the planning phase, but further details will be released next year. Lord Vallance cannot respond as the ministerial champion for the corridor, but I stress that this is an example of what mission-led Government means in practice. We have a cross-Whitehall ministerial delivery group that brings together all interested Departments and ministerial champions to ensure that our approach across the region is consistent, joined up and ambitious. The hon. Members for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) and for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings), among others, asked how we are to bring together and co-ordinate infrastructure and investment. There are nationally significant projects, such as East West Rail, but key in my mind on the planning side are the spatial development strategies that will be enabled through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill on a sub-regional level—high-level infrastructure frameworks for investment and housing growth that can pull together and co-ordinate cross-boundary in the way we need, supplementing national interventions. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge once again for securing the debate and for all the points that he made. I am more than happy to take up land value capture, skills and issues of interest to him. Given the number of meeting requests that I have had, it is probably time for another. Lord Vallance held some engagement sessions for hon. Members earlier this year; I am happy to facilitate, with him, the scheduling of another drop-in session so that hon. Members get the chance to raise specific issues. The Government are going further and faster to deliver growth. The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is not a distant aspiration; it is happening now. It will happen in this decade, to address the point my hon. Friend made in opening the debate. We are building the homes and the infrastructure, delivering the opportunities that the region’s communities deserve and ensuring the corridor becomes a world-class innovation supercluster, driving prosperity for generations to come.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. I thank him for his enthusiasm: despite the shadow Minister’s attempt to cast doom and gloom on the situation, there is a huge amount to be positive about in the Ox-Cam corridor. Not only is my hon. Friend a powerful advocate for the interests of his city, but he has long recognised the huge potential in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential growth sectors within it, as evidenced by his opening remarks. It is therefore fitting that it is he who has given hon. Members the opportunity to discuss this vital matter. I also thank the many other hon. Members who have spoken. I am really pleased that it has been such a well-attended debate. I have heard lots of bids for recognition of any kind, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) and for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), and support for funding. Support is undoubtedly required when it comes to things like planning capacity and capability, an issue raised by the hon. Members for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). There were also requests, as I expected, for various grant funding pots across Government. I cannot respond to each request directly, but I assure hon. Members that I will make sure that my ministerial colleagues in the relevant Departments are made aware of them. In the time available, I will respond to as many as possible of the thematic and broad issues that have been raised. I will start by outlining why the Government are so focused on supercharging growth in the Ox-Cam corridor as part of our ambitious plan for change. As we have heard today, the Oxford-Cambridge region is already an economic powerhouse. It is home to world-leading universities, to globally renowned science and technology firms and to some of the most dynamic innovation clusters in Europe. For a region of 3.5 million people, it punches well above its weight by contributing £143 billion annually to the UK economy. As this debate has evidenced, the corridor is not just a stretch of land between two cities with world-class universities; its strength lies in the combined economic power of the entire region. With its highly productive and thriving tech sector, Milton Keynes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North rightly raised, is a magnet for innovation and investment. Silverstone contributes advanced manufacturing capabilities. Luton brings global connectivity through its international airport and its strong Eurospace and engineering cluster. Culham is now a thriving centre for research, innovation and a world-recognised fusion technology cluster. I could go on—there are many other examples of places that are doing fantastic things. Together, these and other places within the corridor form an interconnected economy that is driving growth, attracting talent and delivering benefits for those places and for the UK as a whole. However—and there is strong consensus across the Chamber on this point—we have not yet realised the region’s full potential. It has the potential to become one of the most innovative and economically dynamic areas in the entire world, but as things stand, numerous constraints, from inadequate transport connections to a lack of affordable housing, are preventing it from realising its true potential. That is why the Government are determined to do what is necessary and apply clarity and consistency to drive sustainable economic growth in the region, to the benefit of local communities and national prosperity. As has been said, there are numerous constraints preventing the corridor from realising its potential. We have had a couple of examples today, and I could add to them. It currently takes two and a half hours to travel by train from Oxford to Cambridge; there is no way to commute by rail directly to Cambridge from places such as Bedford and Milton Keynes; and the lack of affordable housing across the region is a major barrier to securing the world-class talent on which world-class companies depend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge rightly argued, it is now imperative that, after several false starts, we do what is necessary to drive the growth that we need in the region. That is why the Chancellor made it clear in January that the Ox-Cam corridor would be an economic priority for the Government; it is why she appointed Lord Vallance as the ministerial champion for the region. If we are to drive the growth we need in the region, we must improve its infrastructure. As hon. Members will know, we have reaffirmed our commitment to deliver East West Rail in full. That will provide a direct rail line between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, reconnecting businesses and communities and increasing opportunities for people who live and work in the corridor. More recently, at the end of October, we committed £120 million to reopen the Cowley branch line in Oxford. That unlocked significant private investment from the Ellison Institute of Technology, which has committed more than £10 billion in science and technology as it expands its Oxford site over the next decade. All of that is on top of our existing projects to improve wider transport infrastructure across the region, such as the upgrade to the A428, which is central to boosting connectivity between Cambridge and Milton Keynes. We are also supporting greater international links for the corridor through our championing of the expansion of Luton airport. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge set out, we need to develop a clear plan for infrastructure in its widest sense. We are therefore working actively across Whitehall and with local partners to consider the region’s needs in areas such as energy and water provision.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  I have already had a conversation with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about the importance of Kennington bridge to supporting growth and the transformation of Oxford’s west end, and I recognise the significant interdependencies with the Oxford flood alleviation scheme. The hon. Lady should be in no doubt, and my right hon. Friend is in no doubt, that I have made the point to Ministers in the DFT, as my right hon. Friend has done directly. We recognise the importance of the project. Another key priority for the corridor is affordable housing, which obviously falls within the responsibilities of my Department. We need to deliver ambitious housing with a strong sense of place, creating sustainable communities with a high quality of life. That is why we are taking a strong place-based focus through the work of my Department in Cambridge and Oxford in particular. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, we have established the Cambridge Growth Company, which is chaired by Peter Freeman, whom I met again this morning, to drive forward plans for nationally significant growth in greater Cambridge. We are committing up to £400 million to this work to deliver more homes, commercial space and jobs, and have recently announced our intention to consult next year on a centrally led development corporation for the area. As my hon. Friend also mentioned, appointing a high-calibre chief executive to that work will be vital. I can assure him that the search for an exceptional candidate will begin shortly. I appointed regeneration expert Neale Coleman CBE to lead work on the Oxford growth commission, which is supporting a programme of work to unlock stalled development sites and deliver much-needed housing, including social housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East will be aware that 60% of our £39 billion social and affordable homes programme is targeted at social rented homes. We encourage providers in Oxford and across the corridor to put in ambitious bids when the programme opens in February. The corridor could also benefit from our wider work on the new towns programme, with three of the 12 areas highlighted by the new towns taskforce—Tempsford, Milton Keynes and Heyford Park in Oxfordshire—identified as potential sites for development. Looking at the opportunities at the sites will be a key priority for my Department in the coming months. As hon. Members are aware, we have already commenced a strategic environmental assessment to explore the programme as a whole and the most appropriate sites to take forward. We are also putting innovation first by combining public and private investment to unlock growth and support essential infrastructure. That is why we established the UK’s first AI growth zone in Culham, and why we have been able to support the reopening of the railway at Cowley to fully connect Oxford’s innovation districts. As I think the shadow Minister mentioned, that has enabled us to invest £15 million for the Cambridge innovation hub, creating a world-class space for science and entrepreneurship. The corridor is already a huge focus for international investment. Lord Stockwood is the Minister who leads on investment in the ministerial delivery group, and his door is always open for any investors who want to look at opportunities in the corridor. I am sure that hon. Members will be aware of Universal’s plans to open a world-class theme park and resort in Bedfordshire, which we believe will generate a £50 billion boost for the economy and create approximately 28,000 jobs. That is an example of the Government’s growth mission in practice and of our realising the opportunities for growth, despite the shadow Minister’s pessimism on that front. We want to go further, however, and to be ambitious in our support for more investment across the region. I was really pleased that the Chancellor launched our new investment prospectus for the corridor at the regional investment summit in October. It showcased a range of significant opportunities across the region and will be key to our ongoing work to attract inward investment and drive job creation across the corridor. Before I wind up, I want to stress the importance of the environment. As we drive forward our ambitions for the region, it is essential to address environmental constraints and promote sustainable growth. Water scarcity is a key risk to growth in the region. The Government are determined to ensure that we get the infrastructure in place so that businesses and communities can grow and thrive. As I hope hon. Members are aware, we have fast-tracked plans for two new reservoirs in Oxfordshire and Cambridgeshire as part of a £104 billion private sector funding package. We are also implementing innovative approaches to water efficiency in Cambridge.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Flood Resilience: New Housing · Hansard source

  More

  The national planning policy framework sets out a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in these areas. The updates to the framework made in December last year expanded the requirement for development to provide sustainable drainage systems. Statutory guidance accompanying building regulations promotes flood-resilient buildings in flood-prone areas through approved document C.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Flood Resilience: New Housing · Hansard source

  More

  I would say a number of things to the hon. Gentleman. First, local plans are tested for their soundness by the Planning Inspectorate. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual sites, but I again draw the attention of the House to the strong protections in national planning policy which mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady continues to ask me what grey belt is; Google is her friend in this instance. I continue to refer her to the planning practice guidance that covers exactly what it means.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that and other matters of importance to him in his locality. He is a doughty champion for ensuring that, as we bring forward new homes, we get the essential infrastructure and amenities in place as well.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government obviously recognise the importance of ensuring that new housing development is supported by appropriate infrastructure. On the individual company that he references, I will ask my officials to reach out to it directly to discuss its delivery model and find out a bit more about its potential advantages.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We fully appreciate the importance of finishing Ebbsfleet Central, and while I cannot pre-empt the Department’s business planning, my hon. Friend can be assured that his championing of Ebbsfleet Garden City will ensure that it receives the support it requires through the new—

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As I made clear in answer to a previous question, strong protections in national planning policy mean that development that could be vulnerable to flooding should not be allowed in areas of high flood risk. Where local planning authorities have approved development in spite of initial objections—for example, from the Environment Agency—they will have had to ensure that the development would be safe through, for example, adequate mitigations.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to write to me and outline which fund precisely she is talking about. I am more than happy to get back to her if she does that.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  As this is topicals, I do not want to repeat the extensive conversation that the right hon. Member and I have had. He knows that we are making good-faith efforts to resolve the issue and to bring some redress forward for his resident freeholders.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I think he misrepresents the proposal that has been announced. It is not an automatic removal for all planning applications relating to more than 150 homes; it is simply a referral process, which applies in other situations already, that allows the Secretary of State to call in individual applications.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and she is absolutely right. Local development plans should address infrastructure needs and opportunities. When preparing a local plan, local planning authorities are under a duty to bring forward infrastructure funding statements. However, we realise that there is more to be done to ensure that we get the right infrastructure built in the right time as a development proceeds.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Again, he will appreciate that, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning system, I cannot comment on individual applications. I am aware of the concerns that have been raised by Members from across the House about holding directions, issued in particular by National Highways. He may be aware of the reforms that we are making to the statutory consultation system as a whole, which are now out to consultation.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  We are ensuring, through the new £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, for example, that the types of homes that need extra grant funding have that flexibility—that will include rural housing.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  If memory serves, I answered another question from the hon. Gentleman on precisely this topic. He knows, I think, that we are out to consultation on the matter. If he wants to write to me in the first instance with further details about the type of changes he is seeking, I would be more than happy to respond.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which is topical in that I recently met officials from Cornwall council and Members, including hon. Friends, banging the drum for new homes in Cornwall, in particular social and affordable homes. There is ongoing work, including conversations taking place with Homes England, on how we can better support Cornwall to bring forward the homes it needs.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Proposed New Town: Tempsford · Hansard source

  More

  We will be consistent. Where we make commitments around large-scale housing development or infrastructure that is required to support it, we intend to bring that forward, and my hon. Friend will know that on Greater Cambridge we are out to consultation on a centrally-led development corporation to take forward nationally significant growth in his part of the country.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Proposed New Town: Tempsford · Hansard source

  More

  Although Tempsford—along with Crews Hill in Enfield and Leeds South Bank—looks like a promising site, no final decisions on new town locations will be made until the strategic environmental assessment that was commenced on 28 September has concluded. Alongside the SEA process, my Department will continue to engage with local leaders to further develop our understanding of how different locations might meet the Government’s expectations of what a future new towns programme can deliver.