Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman. It sounds to me—I may be guessing here—that he has a specific constituency matter that he might like to discuss with me, and I would be happy to do so.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have called for greater support for swift bricks, which we recognise are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. The new swift brick requirement in the framework will require all developments to include swift bricks in their construction, unless compelling technical reasons prevent their use or make them ineffective. This is a significant strengthening of the expectations already in place, and we expect the end result to be at least one swift brick in every new brick-built house, unless there are legitimate reasons why installation would not be appropriate.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have the time to go into incredible amounts of detail on why we did not choose to take a statutory approach to national development management policies. Suffice it to say that the approach carried considerable uncertainty and risks. There has been a long debate—I can see Members who served on the Bill Committee—about what a conflict between statutory NDMPs and a local development plan would mean in practice. We were concerned about the chilling effect that might have on the system as a whole, so we have decided to proceed, as I have said, with agile changes to national policy. I remind hon. Members—Opposition Members often complain about this—that national planning policy carries significant weight. Since our December reforms, an unprecedented 80% of major residential appeals relating to grey-belt land have been approved. That is the power of national policy in action, but we will keep the matter under review.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I confirm to my hon. Friend that the 40% figure is a minimum, not a target. Our proposals recognise that accessibility needs are locally specific, and our changes ensure that necessary levels of accessible housing are provided, while providing authorities with the flexibility to maximise house building overall. Where needs are higher than the mandatory minimum, we are proposing that planning policies should reflect this.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I have already made on how the new draft framework further consolidates and strengthens the expectations around infrastructure provision. Vision-led transport, which is now hardwired through the framework, will make a difference to the challenges she poses, but she is absolutely right that we want to see infrastructure up front, alongside new homes being delivered.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Mandatory housing targets have an important role to play in a functioning housing and planning system, and we have seen the impact—in nosediving supply—of what happens when anti-supply changes are made to the NPPF. On the specific change that he references, yes, we are changing the referral criteria so that they apply not just to planning applications that might be accepted and that the previous Government wanted to ensure could be blocked, but to planning applications that might be refused and that we might want to see come forward.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I was very clear that there is more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited from the Conservatives. We need greater focus on reform and delivery; that will come next year. The regulatory and planning changes that will be made today—the culmination of 17 months of work to transform our planning system—are absolutely vital. We will come forward in due course with a response to proposals around build-out measures.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I have visited the developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency that Ebbsfleet development corporation is taking forward. As I said in response to an earlier question, we as a Government are clear that new housing must be supported by appropriate infrastructure and amenities. Last year we made important changes to the framework to strengthen the provision of community infrastructure, and, as I have said, the draft framework consolidates and strengthens the support given to that provision, including public services. However, we know that there is more to do to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward at the appropriate time, alongside the building of new homes.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. There is considerable pressure on the housing infrastructure budget and the projects that remain within it. I am aware that in respect of this case, which he has raised with me previously, a material amendment has been submitted and is being considered. Obviously I will not comment on that, but I think his point shows that the Government do provide significant amounts of funding support for land and infrastructure across the country to help to ensure that those homes can come forward in the right places, with the right infrastructure and transport connections.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely, and we are taking concerted action across the Department, not least through the homelessness strategy that was published in recent weeks. At the heart of how we resolve the problem of temporary accommodation is building more affordable homes, particularly more social rented homes. That is precisely why the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme devotes 60% of its funding to social rented homes.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The second half of my statement—I hope my hon. Friend will have noticed—is a series of measures, interventions, policy and regulatory easements to get small and medium-sized house builders back on the pitch in a serious way, alongside councils and community-led housing. We need more providers on the pitch, building a diversified house building market. I hope that SME house builders across the country will welcome the package.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  There is a lot in the hon. Lady’s question, but let me say a couple of things. First, we have been clear as a Government that when new housing comes forward, it must be matched with new amenities and infrastructure. We strengthened the policies in the previous framework last year to provide for community infrastructure, but today’s draft framework consolidates and strengthens that even further. She will be interested in the new vision-led transport measures in the framework, again strengthening those provided for last year. We want the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to come with housing, because we want to create not just housing units, but thriving places and neighbourhoods for people to live.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman’s constituents can trust this Government because we are setting out—for consultation, as I continue to stress—a clear definition of what a well-connected station means. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, we have defined it as the top 60 major economic centres based on travel to work areas by GVA, and four trains an hour or two trains in one direction. This covers 60% of train stations across the country, with 40% that are not covered, but we welcome views through the consultation.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I have referenced before the consolidation and strengthening of the provisions in the framework we published last year in terms of the provision of infrastructure, particularly public service infrastructure. It is local plans, primarily, that should address needs and opportunities around infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward, but the reforms we are making through the draft framework will make both plan making and decision making clearer and simpler. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss the particular challenges she is facing in her constituency.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The solution to nutrient neutrality and other similar constraints is the environmental delivery plans delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right: BNG plays a vital role in protecting and restoring nature, while enabling us to build the homes that this country needs. The Government remain fully committed to it as an approach to development, but, as I hope hon. Members will recognise, this is a novel system that was introduced only last year. We have heard from developers, local authorities and ecologists that the system needs to work better for some of the smallest developments, and that there are particular challenges on brownfield land. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted earlier this year on updates to the system, and why we are today confirming that we will introduce that new exemption—and we think that 0.2 hectares is the right size for it. There is a suite of other simplifications for smaller and medium sites that are not exempted, and DEFRA will consult on whether any acceptable exemptions are appropriate for residential brownfield land.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said in response to previous questions, we made a series of changes to green belt land designation release in the NPPF last year. These changes have been carried over into the draft framework, with one substantive change, which is to enable appropriate development around well-connected train stations across the country, including in the green belt. What I would advise the hon. Lady to say to her constituents is that we should bring forward appropriate and appropriately dense development around existing public transport infrastructure.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  There are real challenges with housing delivery. I refer the hon. Lady to the proposals on build-out generally that we have outlined and sought feedback on. She is absolutely right in the thrust of her question: we are overly reliant as a country on a handful of volume developers. That is precisely why we are encouraging other providers to get in the game through the package we have announced today for small and medium-sized house builders, so that we can have the diversified house building market that we need to bring forward delivery in the volumes the country requires.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  No.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the draft framework we have published today continues to provide the protections for agricultural land that are in place in the NPPF as revised last December, including a preference that development be directed towards areas of poorer-quality agricultural land. On consented sites, he is absolutely right. We want to see more consented sites built out, and that is the whole purpose of our new homes accelerator, which we established to take forward those sites. We published a working paper on build-out transparency, but I am afraid that it remains the case that we have to oversupply consents into the system to drive up the number of houses delivered.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I will meet the hon. Gentleman and his local authority leader—I am more than happy to set out the Government’s position on green-belt land designation and release—but I gently say to him and other Opposition Members that there is no way of building the volume of homes our country needs on brownfield land alone. There is not enough land on brownfield land registers, certainly not brownfield land that is in the right place and viable to meet that need. We do need to release more land, including green-belt land, but we are doing it in a fair way and starting with grey-belt land first.

• 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.