Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 7 Sept 2026 · New Housing: Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  My colleagues on the Front Bench will have heard the hon. Member’s request on the devolution offer that needs to be made to Cornwall. He cited a case where the developers backed out of their commitments: specifically on developer contributions, I should say that communities rightly expect necessary infrastructure to be provided and any commitments made to be met. Section 106 planning obligations help, obviously, to mitigate the impacts of a development proposal. They are legally binding and enforceable. If he wants to write to me with the particular circumstances of the case, he is more than welcome to do so.

• 7 Sept 2026 · New Housing: Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  Local planning authorities are expected to plan effectively for infrastructure provision through local development plans and infrastructure funding statements. To support them, the Government have strengthened national planning policy in respect of community facilities and public service infrastructure, and we provide direct financial support for essential infrastructure in areas of greatest housing demand through land and infrastructure funding programmes.

• 7 Sept 2026 · New Housing: Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the shadow Minister to the Front Bench on a well-deserved promotion. The previous Government had 14 years to resolve this problem; they did not do so. I say to the shadow Minister honestly—he knows this full well as a former local councillor—that there is no single, simple answer to the problem of getting the necessary infrastructure in place. As I said, we have strengthened national planning policy to ensure that community facilities and public service infrastructure are brought forward. Again, we are strengthening developer contributions. We directly finance land and infrastructure. There is more to be done, and we will do it.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Urban Housing: Densification · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are undertaking a number of pieces of work to look at what more we can do to revitalise our high streets. The Secretary of State and I are looking specifically at what more we can do to arm local authorities with the powers they need to bring empty homes back into use.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Urban Housing: Densification · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is absolutely right that house builders across the country face challenges with viability, not least owing to the implications of the ongoing conflict in the middle east. London has a number of challenges particular to itself that the rest of the country does not face; that is precisely why we brought forward an emergency package with the Mayor of London, specifically to get those stalled sites in the capital moving.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Urban Housing: Densification · Hansard source

  More

  We have not got it wrong: the new NPPF does prioritise urban development and densification. As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman a number of times, local authorities can justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the standard method on the basis of local constraints, such as land availability. It is for local planning authorities themselves to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances that justify the release of green belt, and we fully expect them to first demonstrate that they have fully examined all other reasonable options for meeting identified need for development, including making as much use as possible of suitable brownfield sites and underutilised land.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Urban Housing: Densification · Hansard source

  More

  The new national planning policy framework, published on 17 August, includes a number of new policies designed to increase densification inside settlements, including by encouraging the upward expansion of existing homes and the creation of new dwellings in existing plots.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Train Stations: Walking Distance Definition · Hansard source

  More

  We need more housing in all parts of the country. We do have a brownfield-first approach, and we do want to see infrastructure delivered in a timely manner alongside housing developments, but it is absolutely right that we focus development within reasonable walking distance of train stations within settlements, or well connected stations outside settlements, including those in the green belt. As I have said, these are some of the most sustainable locations for new housing in the country. We have defined well connected stations by the 80 travel-to-work areas of the country, and we have also linked minimum density requirements to service frequency. There is a link between the number of trains that a station receives per hour and the amount of development that we want to see. However, I am more than happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman about the particular issues in his constituency.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Train Stations: Walking Distance Definition · Hansard source

  More

  The definition of “reasonable walking distance” is set out in the glossary of the national planning policy framework. For the purposes of policies relating to land around well connected stations, the glossary makes it clear that it should be considered to be about 800 metres, or about 10 minutes’ walk time if topography, route availability or quality, or physical barriers “would prevent or discourage walking from up to 800 metres away.”

• 7 Sept 2026 · Grey Belt: Shropshire · Hansard source

  More

  The Government do not collect data on how much land within green belts has been formally identified as grey belt by individual local authorities. It is for local authorities themselves to determine whether land in their areas constitutes grey belt, either through plan making or through looking at specific applications. On 27 February 2025, the Government updated green-belt planning practice guidance to support a consistent approach to assessing green belt to identify grey-belt land.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Grey Belt: Shropshire · Hansard source

  More

  I am aware of the case. My understanding is that Shropshire council refused planning permission for the development on the basis that the land was not grey belt and therefore building on it would constitute inappropriate development in the green belt. In general terms, when it comes to determining whether a site is classified as grey belt, the relevant inspector will, at appeal, consider relevant legislation; national planning policy, including the national planning policy framework; planning policy guidance; and any other relevant local development plan policies and material considerations.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Large-scale Development Masterplans · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing this important debate. I commend her for the compelling argument she makes about the importance of planning effectively for large-scale residential developments to ensure that they are well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, with all the infrastructure, amenities and services needed to sustain thriving communities. While I note my hon. Friend’s comments, both today and previously, in respect of the BL1 green-belt site in Lightwood that is identified in the draft local plan, I know she is cognisant of the fact that I cannot comment on specific local plans, sites or planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but I will make some general points that I hope will be of use. I start with plan making. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. The benefits of an up-to-date local plan are significant and well known across the Chamber. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that areas need. They enable local areas to set the strategy for future growth and the approach to protecting and enhancing the environment, and they provide the certainty and confidence required to bring development forward across the country. In the absence of an up-to-date local plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, as my hon. Friend mentioned, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential. That is why the Government remain determined to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible in order to achieve our ambition of universal plan coverage and to ensure that plans contribute positively to increasing rates of house building and infrastructure delivery. My hon. Friend will know that the emerging Stoke-on-Trent city council local plan is undergoing the regulation 19 consultation, and I encourage her and her constituents to engage meaningfully with that process, if they have not already done so, to ensure that any specific concerns are understood by the authority even at this advanced stage. Anyone who has submitted a representation during the consultation on the draft plan may make a request to be heard by the inspector during the examination. Once submitted for examination, it will be for the independent inspector to examine the plan and the proposed site allocations to ensure that they are legally compliant and sound. Of course, it is for the inspector to ensure that the plan is in conformity with national policy, which has always been clear that local plans should identify the infrastructure necessary to support the delivery of the local plan, providing certainty and better outcomes for communities, businesses and developers. I want briefly to mention the interaction between design guides, codes and masterplans and local plans. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that local planning authorities can identify and prioritise where design guides, codes and masterplans are produced and can make provision for their adoption as supplementary plans. There is no requirement for them to be adopted as part of the development plan, but where they are incorporated into development plans, they are afforded more weight on that basis. It is important that for those key sites where a local authority wants to see a masterplan in place, they are incorporated into plans. They can also be produced as part of the development management process to support the delivery of larger site allocations. In the new national planning policy framework that we published on 17 August, we included new policy—policy L1, for those who are interested—which encourages the use of masterplans, where appropriate, to optimise the use of site allocations. We included this in response to consultation feedback. My hon. Friend made a number of specific points in the context of her concerns about the BL1 site about large-scale residential development and the importance of master planning to ensure the best outcomes for communities, and I very much agree with her about the benefits. Delivering at scale does provide opportunities for comprehensive development where homes, infrastructure, green space and community facilities can be planned together from the outset. National planning policy has long required local plans to take this joined-up approach, including by setting out the infrastructure needed to support growth and clear expectations for the quality of places to be created. That includes using design tools such as masterplans and design codes where they are needed. In response to the specific points my hon. Friend raised, the new NPPF that we published on 17 August has strengthened national planning policy in this area for future plans and sites, including by introducing a definition of what is called a strategic site—a site of at least 1,500 dwellings, most often to be delivered in multiple phases, and that has significant infrastructure requirements. Through that NPPF, we have set clear expectations that such development should come forward in suitable locations, be supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities, address strategic environmental opportunities and—I quote from the glossary—“require a masterplan.” Going forward, we require a masterplan for any strategic site of over 1,500 units to be taken forward. To my hon. Friend’s point on accessibility, the new NPPF also strengthens expectations for a mix of homes and tenures on strategic sites. While it will principally shape future plan making and future site allocations, it does, I hope, demonstrate this Government’s direction of travel, ensuring that large-scale developments are planned comprehensively, supported by timely infrastructure and capable of being well-designed, sustainable places even where a stand-alone masterplan is not in place. However, I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns in the context of her draft local plan being assessed under the old framework, not the new one. I want to touch briefly on design and infrastructure. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of providing a long-term vision to guide the delivery of well-designed, large-scale development. Again, national planning policy is clear that local authorities should identify in their development plans where masterplans are necessary to achieve positive design outcomes and that they should use masterplans, where appropriate, to optimise the use of both allocated sites and smaller windfall sites. It also requires that masterplans reflect a clear understanding of local character and the wider context of an area, and should be informed by effective community engagement. We are not complacent; we want to build on what is already in place. Our draft planning practice guidance on design and placemaking, which we consulted on between January and March this year, will go even further to support local authorities to prepare effective masterplans in collaboration with communities and key stakeholders. A chief concern that my hon. Friend raised was infrastructure, the provision of which, as she made clear, communities across the country rightly expect to be delivered alongside development, rather than being an afterthought. We have been clear that while we need to build many more homes, they need to be supported by the right infrastructure to ensure that we are creating functioning places where people want to live and work. The new NPPF has strengthened existing national policy to ensure that developers and local plans deliver much needed affordable homes and the infrastructure required to support new development such as schools and GP surgeries. Through the new NPPF, we have placed a greater emphasis on up-front clarity on expected developer contributions, reducing the risk of lengthy negotiations and again providing greater certainty for communities. More widely, our new NPPF supports the provision of new community facilities and public service infrastructure, particularly where new development would have a significant impact on the number of people needing to use those services. The NPPF is also clear that, in planning for new community facilities and public service infrastructure, authorities should engage proactively with local communities and the relevant service providers, taking into account relevant strategies to improve health, address inequalities and foster social and cultural wellbeing for all sections of the community. At the same time, the Government are backing delivery centrally with the launch of a new national housing delivery fund. That includes about £5 billion of capital grant funding to address viability challenges across the country, including through remediation of brownfield sites and the provision of unlocking infrastructure. The fund is designed to deliver a range of interventions, including large strategic schemes as well as faster, smaller sites and viability gap projects. Its aim is to accelerate housing delivery, increase supply and support our ambition to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. It sits alongside the £16 billion of financial capacity that we have available to us through our national housing bank. On landscapes and green places, again, it is important for me to say to my hon. Friend that the NPPF highlights the importance of conserving and enhancing landscape character, the natural beauty of the countryside and higher quality agricultural land. Local plans may designate land as local green space where that would safeguard green areas of particular value to the local community. We have also introduced a new requirement for plans to set standards for green infrastructure, defined as a multi-functional network of green and blue spaces. The Government are obviously also committed to the ongoing protection of England’s green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. We have not shied away, however, from the fact that we do need to take forward a more strategic, targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release where that is necessary; but when local authorities have to release green belt under exceptional circumstances, we expect them to prioritise previously developed and lower-quality grey-belt land within the green belt. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. I am passionate about well-designed masterplans, which can really reduce opposition to development by convincing people that the development coming forward is infrastructure-led, well designed and sustainable. The Government are committed to delivering the right homes that people need while ensuring that development is supported by the appropriate infrastructure, working in tandem with local areas. We have, as I set out today, taken bold steps to reform the planning system and to drive wider changes across the housing market to improve supply, quality and fairness. I look forward to working closely with colleagues to build a housing system that is both fair and sustainable, and to drive up the quality and indeed coverage of masterplans, particularly on strategic sites across the country. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  That is an appropriate question. The shadow Minister may recall that during the passage of the Bill we committed to some upfront funding for Natural England. However, we have come to the regulations before us: the point is that the levy is designed to operate on a full cost-recovery basis. Rates are required to reflect the cost of delivering the necessary conservation measures, as well as covering the costs of monitoring and maintenance activities. Some of the levy can be used on the cost of setting up and consulting on an EDP but it is primarily for bringing the conservation measures forward. The shadow Minister also asked about payments in lieu—off-site payments, as I took it. The regulations do not provide for that. That is not the assumption that we are working on. I come back to what an EDP means in practice. Let us take the case of nutrient pollution, which will be the first we consult on. Natural England will have put together a suite of conservation measures across a designated area that it can call on to ensure that the overall improvement test is met. As I said in my opening remarks, each individual developer can still decide to discharge relevant environmental obligations under current arrangements if they do not feel that the levy rate provides value for money. However, we hope that the workings of the EDP will show that it is a very effective, efficient way to discharge those obligations. We hope that more developers will come in. As the levy payments come in, Natural England will begin to draw on the suite of conservation measures available to it. We are taking forward separate regulations on the prioritisation of conservation measures: as part of an EDP, Natural England will have to set out in general terms a prioritisation and sequencing of conservation measures. Those are not mutually exclusive; some might be relevant and used in different instances. This is about what it brings forward to meet those requirements. As more developers come within the given area where the EDP is operating, Natural England will be able to leverage economies of scale. That is the big win here: allowing those economies of scale and that strategic approach. The regulations are not designed for payments in lieu. I hope that I have dealt with the cumulative impact. When it comes to individual planning applications, developers will have to indicate that they wish to discharge their obligations through the EDP. At that point, there will be a commitment to pay on the part of Natural England. The developer can then use that commitment to take that through the relevant planning process. The planning process may not be successful, but if it is, the liability to pay is ensured and there will be payment into the scheme. In terms of cumulative impact, a particular developer may seek to discharge its obligations on a site-by-site, project-level basis, using EDPs only on some sites in the catchment—again, we would hope not; we want as many developers to be using EDPs as possible. That is probably unlikely if developers see that EDPs are working for them as an efficient way to discharge the obligations. I am sure that developers will start to make better use of the scheme. Let me address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised, including on changing the levy without consultation. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 sets out the circumstances where reconsultation on an EDP is required, such as where new conservation measures are proposed or the amount of development coverage is increased. There are a couple of scenarios where that might work. Say the projected development of homes or infrastructure increases; there might be a need to amend the EDP. Alternatively, additional conservation measures might be required. Under the powers in the Act, the Secretary of State may direct Natural England to reconsult when there are changes to the EDP’s charging schedule. That allows the levy rate to change to meet the cost of the EDP, in line with the overall improvement test, but it does not require reconsultation in all circumstances. We would not want a wholesale public consultation on minor changes to the levy rate; when there are significant changes, the Secretary of State has the power to do that. The levy rate for developers is set at the point where Natural England accepts the commitment to pay. If the levy rate subsequently needs to be increased to ensure that the required conservation measures can be delivered, the new rate will take effect only for future requests made to the EDP. In terms of independent oversight, EDPs will not be black-box exercises; as we said, they are subject to public consultation. In the very near future we will launch the consultation on the first EDP, which is on nutrient neutrality. Before an EDP can take effect, local authorities, environmental groups and others will have a chance to scrutinise it in its entirety. Natural England must then consider the consultation responses before finalising the EDP and the Secretary of State retains statutory oversight through the approval of the EDP itself and whether it meets the overall improvement test. I do not want to relitigate the extensive debates in Committee, but that overall improvement test is the test that must be met. In the case of the first EDP that we bring forward, it will be the DEFRA Secretary of State who makes the judgment on whether the EDP is to be made following consultation. I have covered whether the levy funds are not required to meet costs in full. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised the absence of a legal route to exit a commitment if circumstances change, but we have designed the draft regulations to accommodate the changing circumstances that developers might face. The regulations allow for levy-related commitments to be cancelled in specified scenarios, ensuring that the system can respond when a development does not proceed as anticipated. That reflects a proportionate approach to provide certainty for Natural England in delivering the necessary conservation measures, while recognising that plans can change over the lifetime of a development.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the shadow Minister for those questions. Let me deal with them each in turn. It may be useful if I set out in plainer terms how an EDP will be made and how the levy will be set. The shadow Minister asked first about Natural England capacity. We debated that at length during the passage of the Bill: we believe that Natural England is the appropriate delivery body for the NRF, given its internal expertise and ability to operate effectively across the whole of England. It is also worth saying that when carrying out its functions under the nature restoration fund, Natural England remains bound by its wider statutory duties and general purposes, as set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2026. Those include promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity. We think that Natural England is the appropriate body. It will be supported to take strategic action to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual EDPs, using income from the nature restoration levy. This is a really important point: the levy is based on full cost recovery. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the levy can be used to support administrative duties tied to the EDP, but is primarily to fund conservation measures that EDPs will bring forward, on a full cost-recovery basis. The regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover management, maintenance and other things. That will enable Natural England to build and maintain the capacity and capability needed to design, implement and monitor EDPs effectively. The important point to convey to the Committee is that each EDP will be subject to public consultation. In line with the commitment we made in the other place, we have been working for many months with Natural England and DEFRA on the first EDP, which deals solely with nutrient pollution; we thought that was the best constraint to take the first EDP forward on. In bringing forward an EDP, Natural England will have to project and estimate the maximum amount of development that that EDP can cater for and set a levy rate based on what is necessary to deliver the conservation measures required to discharge and meet that overall improvement test; I will come back to that in a second. Natural England will set a levy for each individual EDP. That will be subject to public consultation. Environmental groups, local residents, local authorities and developers will each have a say on the particular levy being consulted on. That gives the public a chance to have input into what is taken forward.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his question. That brings me back to my point about how the levy is set and how it is tested through public consultation. It will be for Natural England to judge the quantum of development to be taken forward and to divide the individual charge on a per-hectare or per-dwelling basis in the most appropriate way. However, at the point when the developer seeks to discharge its environmental obligations through the use of the levy it will have consented to pay that levy amount. We will test the levy amount through public consultation, but the test of whether the levy is set effectively is that it allows for the conservation measures to be deployed. There is a statutory ringfence on the funds, so it is not as if the funds could be diverted to other uses. As we made clear repeatedly throughout the passage of the Bill, EDPs will be based on the best scientific evidence available and on all the expertise in Natural England to allow it to judge whether it has the levy rate right. As I said, that will be tested in consultation. To answer the shadow Minister’s point, I should say that the value should not be exceeded. I think I have responded to all the points. I thank Members for their questions. To be clear, this draft statutory instrument sets out a framework for the nature restoration levy and provides Natural England with the tools it needs to implement the nature restoration fund effectively. The draft regs are a necessary precursor to that first consultation, which as I have made clear will concern nutrient pollution only. That is the commitment that we gave. We will return to the House with an evaluation of how that consultation worked before we proceed, although Natural England and DEFRA are working on the early stages of the EDPs for other interventions—great crested newts are a priority for colleagues in DEFRA. I hope that the draft regulations will be welcomed by the Committee and I commend them to it. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Draft Nature Restoration Levy regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 June. When it comes to development and the environment, this Government have been clear that we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature. To that end, we legislated through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to introduce a nature restoration fund that will unlock and accelerate development, going beyond simply offsetting harm to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery. The purpose of the NRF is simple: to end the current suboptimal approach to discharging environmental obligations, in which developers are required to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo; and to replace that with a more strategic approach that will streamline delivery of new homes and infrastructure, while efficiently delivering improved environmental outcomes by leveraging economies of scale and reducing need for costly project-level assessments. As hon. Members are aware, the core principles and purpose of the NRF were subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses. Relevant clauses of the original Bill were strengthened in a number of important ways during its passage to provide further reassurance that the fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. It would not be appropriate to relitigate the lengthy debates that took place in the Bill Committee, but I take this opportunity to emphasise that strong safeguards were built into the 2025 Act to ensure that the fund will restore, not harm, nature. Those include a binding overall improvement test, monitoring and back-up measures, remedial action and the ability to amend or revoke plans if necessary. Shifting to a strategic approach requires positive planning, which is why the creation of environmental delivery plans sits at the heart of the model. EDPs will be developed by Natural England, the Government’s adviser in respect of the natural environment, and will demonstrate how the proposed package of conservation measures delivered by the EDP will materially outweigh one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species. Those conservation measures will then be deployed by Natural England where they will have the greatest environmental benefit. Each EDP will be subject to public consultation, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to scrutinise the evidence presented by Natural England before an EDP can be made. At the conclusion of that process, the Secretary of State will consider whether the EDP meets the overall improvement test established under the Act before they formally make the EDP. Where an EDP is in place, developers will have the option to pay the nature restoration levy to discharge the relevant environmental obligations that the EDP covers. That levy is the subject of the draft regulations that we are considering. The draft nature restoration levy regulations set out how the levy mechanism will work in practice. They will provide the statutory framework for key elements of the levy’s operation, including how liability to pay the levy may be assumed, imposed or transferred, and they explain how the amount of the levy will be calculated, when payment will be due, and the enforcement mechanisms available to Natural England when obligations are not met. The purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable the delivery, management, maintenance and monitoring of the conservation measures identified in the relevant EDP. The draft regulations therefore provide clear safeguards to support the effective delivery of such measures. They ensure that payments from developers are sufficient to meet the costs of the relevant conservation measures, are properly recovered in a timely manner, and are aligned with the commercial realities of development. Levy rates will be set through individual EDP charging schedules, which will form part of the EDP, which is consulted on. Those charging schedules will be based primarily on the cost of delivering the conservation measures needed to materially outweigh the development impacts. At times during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, concerns were expressed that funds collected through the NRF might be diverted to pay for other, unrelated priorities. I assure hon. Members that the draft regulations will ensure that levy funds can be used only for the delivery of the conservation measures set out in the relevant EDP and for the administrative expenses connected with that EDP. Clear reporting requirements on how levy receipts are spent will further enable the NRF to operate transparently and with appropriate scrutiny. I stress that levy receipts are subject to a statutory ringfence and must be used to deliver the EDP for which they were collected. Only costs reasonably attributable to that EDP can be funded through levy income. I am also aware of concerns regarding the potential impacts of EDPs on development viability. I want to make it clear, however, that we have put in place important safeguards to protect developers who choose to use the NRF from unjustified costs. Public consultation and rigorous Secretary of State scrutiny of each EDP will ensure that proposed levy rates are carefully considered before any EDP is made. It is also worth reiterating—we debated this issue at length in Committee—that in almost all cases EDPs will be voluntary and developers will have the option to meet obligations through existing routes if they do not believe that discharging their obligations through the NRF represents good value for money. Although the levy regulations are a key part of the new system, we recognise that users will need proper support to navigate the NRF. I am pleased to say that initial guidance has now been published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Natural England to support the implementation of the first EDPs. The guidance sets out the key steps for NRF users and explains the core operational processes that will underpin the NRF system. We will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further areas where guidance might assist as we work to roll out the NRF. To conclude, the regulations will support the effective implementation of the NRF by ensuring that the levy operates effectively, transparently and fairly so that we can build the homes and infrastructure our country needs while improving our natural environment for future generations. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 16 Jul 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for their contributions. The degree of praise that I received from Opposition Members is slightly damning of my chances in any upcoming reshuffle, but I thank them for their kind words. Members raised a wide range of concerns and asked many questions. In the time available to me, I will respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those relating to the national planning policy framework. Issues such as the national scheme of delegation of planning functions—our modernisation of planning committees—are outside the framework, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and others about them. The national planning policy framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. It makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As hon. Members know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The Government’s manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we consulted on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024. Among the many changes made in the initial revision of the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets—the Conservatives abolished them when they were in government, which contributed to the low number of net additional completions in our first year in office— a new standard method for assessing housing need, which is aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release; and support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure. As hon. Members know, in December 2025, we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation. The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago. The new NPPF that we consulted on is wholly restructured. It maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December 2024. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors. As hon. Members have noted, it incorporates new, clear, rules-based national policies for plan and decision making. The proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike. The new decision-making policies in the framework published in 2025 are designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and do not need that degree of local variation any longer; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans as they are being prepared. To ensure that those changes made an immediate difference, the Government proposed that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one. As part of that overall change to the framework, we also proposed new polices to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. They include, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development; the establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around well-connected train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land; and policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. Our proposals also include policies that embed a vision-led approach to transport, further embedding the changes that we made in December 2024; policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation; and policies designed to ensure that we are better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks, and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.

• 16 Jul 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

  If I remain in post after the summer recess, I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady. Where the sequential and exception tests have been applied as necessary and are not met, the framework is clear that development should not be allowed. I want to push back gently on the assertions made by the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, that we have weakened the sequential test. We have not weakened the sequential test in any way. We have clarified through changes to the PPG the triggers for the sequential test as well as its application, but we have not weakened it. If it is found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk, the statutory guidance accompanying the building regulations promotes flood-resilient building work in flood-prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. The draft NPPF that we have consulted on includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change. This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPPF with recent updates to planning guidance. It also included policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the national standards for sustainable drainage systems to provide a consistent basis for improving their design. On the presumption in favour of sustainable development, we are trying to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. Several hon. Members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up-to-date local plans and five-year housing land supplies. We are making great progress in driving up plan coverage. Over 60% more local plans are at examination now than at this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage. It is important, where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted, and that is what the presumption provides for. However, the NPPF we published in December 2024 not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make it clear that its application cannot justify poor-quality development. Under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses or would use parks and open space or land identified for flood risk management. It would also be disapplied where development does not achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk, design and being an effective use of land. I have only a short time available to me and a wide range of other issues were raised. I will touch on each briefly. On our housing target and the standard method we have introduced, in our view the new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing need and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers, compared with the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic predictions and unevidenced and arbitrary judgments. On brownfield, grey-belt and green-belt land, the hon. Member for Orpington knows full well that we strengthened the policy in the December 2024 NPPF on brownfield land. We have gone further in the draft framework that is out for consultation. It is not the case that there is enough brownfield land, particularly not viable land in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain exceptional circumstances, local authorities need to release green-belt land. We ask them when they do so to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and where necessary reviewing their green belt. The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. There is no confusion about what it means. Where grey belt is being brought forward, it cannot fundamentally undermine the policies of the green belt across the wider plan area; we included that safeguard in the framework. On train stations, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was right that we want more development to come forward in sustainable locations around train stations. We obviously took a different approach to all stations, as opposed to well-connected stations, where we are looking for higher minimum densities to come forward. I must be clear that the proposals do not grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations. I will not dwell on rural or urban housing targets. I have said before and say again that across city regions the new standard method increases targets by 20% and, through that, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas and smaller cities as well as our larger city areas. I commend the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters. Over the past two years, the Government have sought to revamp the planning system to ensure that it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building and high-quality infrastructure in the years ahead. To the point on infrastructure, the new NPPF strengthens expectations in that area as well. More needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, but the revised NPPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions today and wish them all, and you, Sir Desmond, an enjoyable and productive summer recess.

• 16 Jul 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

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

• 16 Jul 2026 · National Planning Policy Framework · Hansard source

  More

  We have had this debate many times. I will come on to housing targets and the fact that if there is an up-to-date local plan in place, the housing targets do not need to be immediately revised. On the specific point about rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation. We have received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on Government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments, it has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess. We will seek to do so in due course. The issue of flooding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, is of particular concern in her constituency, as she made clear. The NPPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in those areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. That involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test. In decision making, where necessary, planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed.

• 8 Jul 2026 · The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order was laid before the House on 4 June. It will establish a centrally led urban development corporation in greater Cambridge, pursuant to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which provides that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area only when they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation. As the Committee will be aware, the economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success. It now has arguably the most intensive and innovative science and technology cluster in the world, with more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms based in and around the city, employing tens of thousands of skilled workers and generating in excess of £18 billion in annual turnover. However, the supply-side constraints that are evident across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, from infrastructure deficiencies to housing affordability, are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation, its ability to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy, and the quality of life experienced by its existing residents are all dependent on removing those constraints. Local institutions and leaders have worked hard to support the rapid growth of greater Cambridge over recent years. Over the past two years, the Government have intervened alongside local authorities and the greater Cambridge shared planning service to address pressing constraints such as water scarcity. Such action has helped to unlock more than 9,000 homes, 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and a new cancer research hospital. It is widely accepted, however, that delivering development at the scale and pace necessary to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge is beyond the capacity and powers of existing institutions. It was for that reason that, between 4 February and 1 April this year, we consulted on proposals to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—a centrally led urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s full potential. I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process. The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required. While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required. The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

• 8 Jul 2026 · The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very good question. In short, although I am more than happy to expand on this response, the development corporation’s boundary does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the recent consultation on local government reorganisation. The Government would, of course, consider, through due process, any changes to the development area that are deemed necessary as a result of any local government reorganisation but, as I say, that does not pre-empt or prejudice what we are taking through by dint of this order. The Government have worked hard to sustain a constructive relationship with local leaders and key partners. We want the development corporation to be a joint national and local endeavour that combines local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership powers and investment. As such, the democratically elected leaders of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council, as well as the democratically elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board. The Government also recognise that input from residents and communities will be integral to the success of the development corporation. That is why it will be asked to create exemplary engagement structures to enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councillors. The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an independent corporate entity, allowing it to be granted infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers in due course. The powers and functions order, which my officials are preparing for consideration later this year, will equip the development corporation with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications above a minimum threshold of 250 homes, and non-residential applications above 5,000 square metres. Our intention is that the development corporation will eventually take on plan-making powers. However, we believe the optimal way to kick-start growth in the plan-led system is to take a phased approach. As such, the development corporation will exercise plan-making powers only once the draft local plan has been adopted. The Government are clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans will be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth. The development corporation will also be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. Only applications for sites of strategic importance will be determined by the development corporation. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. The Government recognise and accept that almost all strategic residential developments will be of over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats. Any application that is determined by the development corporation will still be considered against national and local policy, and subject to public consultation as normal. That combination of powers will provide the development corporation with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, and set the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country. The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an entity accountable to the Secretary of State and set out the geographical boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will focus on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth within its boundary. It will work collaboratively with local authorities both within and bordering its development area, as well as with transport bodies and utility providers, to unlock development opportunities and boost economic growth. I extend my sincere thanks to local leaders and their officers in greater Cambridge for their hard work and ongoing constructive collaboration in pursuit of our shared objective of supporting ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. I also thank Peter Freeman for his continued leadership of the Cambridge Growth Company and commend the CGC for everything it has done to date to help to facilitate the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and commercial and laboratory space. I hope that hon. Members agree on the value of establishing the development corporation. I commend the order to the Committee.

• 8 Jul 2026 · The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  That was a long list of perfectly reasonable and fair questions, which I will seek to answer in turn. If I miss any, hon. Members are more than welcome to intervene on me. I will begin with the questions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The order establishes, as a corporate body, a centrally led urban development corporation, not a mayoral development corporation. The sitting Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will have representation, with a seat on the board, but the mayor and his area will not be controlling this development corporation; it is very different from the mayoral development corporation model. I think the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has designs on a mayoral development corporation for Peterborough, but that would be a delivery vehicle very different from the one we are establishing here. The mayor will, however, have representation on the board along with other local authority leaders. The shadow Minister asked me about the planning committee modernisation statutory instrument that we voted on today. That will apply to local authority committees in the ways we discussed when we considered that instrument in Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect the vast majority of planning applications still to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. I will come on to why we have taken the development management powers we propose to in the functions order that will follow in the months to come, and why we have chosen the 250-home threshold, but planning committees are a local planning authority designation. The development corporation, as an entity and delivery vehicle in itself, will take particular development management powers to determine specific sites, which I will come on to in a moment. The same goes for conditions that would be associated with a planning permission. We think those development management powers are important to accelerate strategic growth in an integrated and co-ordinated way. The decision to grant development management powers to the development corporation for strategic sites reflects the need to balance local and national planning merits to facilitate nationally significant growth in the area. I bring us back to the objective of the development corporation to facilitate nationally significant growth, which local leaders—they have made great efforts over recent years—are quite clear that they are not able to do. When it comes to some very serious constraints—the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned water scarcity—local leaders have not been able on their own to remove some of these barriers. That is what the development corporation is for. Development management powers will be granted for sites of strategic importance. We will define what “strategic importance” means at a later date, but as a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the minimum thresholds that we outlined in the Government response to the consultation on 3 June. We gave a flavour in the consultation of the type of sites we have in mind. I think we listed seven sites, which are major sites already identified in the local plan. I hope that gives the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire a sense of the type of strategic sites that we are talking about. We need the threshold because the development corporation can delegate decision making to the greater Cambridge shared planning service, but that service is unable to reverse-delegate the determination of planning applications to the development corporation. As such, we judge that if the threshold for residential development were set at a level higher than 250 homes, the development corporation would be unable to exercise development management powers for any application that fell below that threshold, even if the application could prejudice the delivery of a strategic site. That is the central objective of the 250-home threshold. We do need the development corporation to have the ability to move in and determine an application on a site that might impact the delivery of a strategic site. As I said to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the Committee, we will come back and define a “strategic site” in more detail as we take forward the functions order later this year. To reassure him, that functions order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; we will have a chance to debate and vote on it in the House. [ Official Report , 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 422.] (Correction.) The shadow Minister raised a point about boundaries. Again, this is all outlined in the 3 June Government response to the consultation: 42% of respondents to the consultation agreed with our proposed boundaries—the Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council administrative areas—23% felt they were too small, and 33% felt they were too wide. We recognise that there is a wide range of views about what the precise boundaries should be, but we judge that the boundaries as consulted on are a broad development area that will allow and underpin the development corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth that is necessary to deliver on both local and national interests. As set out in the consultation, the proposed boundary encompasses the land required to support strategic infrastructure, providing a sufficiently broad geography to maximise funding opportunities and enable land value capture to support social and environmental projects. Aligning the boundaries with those of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council will simplify the governance arrangements in this area—that has been a real source of challenge over recent years—and enable the development corporation to support the delivery of the draft local plan. I am glad that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned the draft local plan. We are working very closely with the shared planning service and democratically elected local leaders. We want to see that draft plan adopted. On the Secretary of State’s powers as they apply to the development corporation and its ability to take planning powers in the future, we do want it to have those powers; we think that is absolutely necessary to set out a spatial plan for the years to come. This development corporation will exist for at least 25 years, perhaps longer, but we want to see that local plan in place in the first instance, and the Government are doing what we can to support that process and help the authority get the plan in place. On local government reorganisation, to add briefly to what I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, proposals for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were received in November 2025 and recently went out to consultation. As I said, the development corporation’s boundary, established by this order, does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of LGR in that regard. I push back quite strongly on the challenge from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we have not outlined in any way the objectives of the development corporation. If he reads the Government response to the consultation, published on 3 June, he will see exhaustive explanations of why we think the development corporation is necessary and the sort of capacity, powers and ability it can leverage in on private finance, land assembly and all these matters to meet the shared objectives for the area. We will build on that with the functions order—we will detail precisely how the planning powers and the development management powers will come through—but to assure him, the development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. Targets for the development corporation’s objectives will be set across the development corporation’s corporate plan, framework document and development plan, and in individual business plans for all projects. We will have a chance to scrutinise those documents, among others. I hope that I have responded to all the points raised by hon. Members. I think this is a fairly straightforward and simple instrument, which establishes the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as a legal body and sets the geographical boundaries in which that development corporation will operate. I commend the order to the Committee. Question put.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Point of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct an inadvertent error I made earlier today. During the Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee debate on the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026, I inadvertently stated that a relevant powers and functions order would fall under the affirmative procedure, when it will actually be made under the negative procedure. [ Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 July 2026; c. 10.]

• 2 Jul 2026 · Commonhold and Leasehold Reform: Managing Agents · Hansard source

  More

  I start by declaring an interest: my wife is the joint chief executive of the Law Commission, whose work I will cite in the course of my remarks. It is a pleasure to respond to this vital debate on behalf of the Government, and I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) on securing it. Commonhold and leasehold reform and the regulation of property agents are issues of the utmost importance to millions of homeowners across the country, and I commend her and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate them in detail. Let me briefly put on record once again my sincere thanks to her, the other members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and its Clerks for the huge amount of work undertaken in support of pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. This has been an excellent debate, with many informed and passionate contributions, and I thank all hon. Members who have participated. Collectively, those contributions have served to reinforce both the complexities and challenges of leasehold reform and the strength of feeling that exists across the country in respect of the need to act boldly and urgently to provide relief to the millions of leaseholders and residential freeholders currently suffering as a result of unfair and unreasonable practices—and make no mistake: they are suffering. We have heard of some particularly egregious cases in this debate. What may seem like prosaic matters to many—service charges, ground rents, consent fees—are the source of acute financial hardship and misery for huge numbers of those living in one of the approximately 5 million leasehold dwellings in England and Wales. Let me be as clear as I can from the Dispatch Box: leaseholders are being routinely gouged by freeholders and managing agents acting on their behalf. They are being gouged as a result of a system that denies leaseholders control over the homes they live in and have paid for and subjects them to extraction in the form of punitive, escalating ground rents, unreasonable or extortionate charges, unjustified permissions and administration fees, and onerous conditions, often imposed with little or no consultation. I have said it many times before, and I will say it again: this is not what home ownership should entail. Leasehold is blighting lives. Leasehold is a barrier to a fair and efficient modern residential property market. Leasehold is an anachronism in the 21st century. The aim of this Government by the end of this Parliament is nothing short of dismantling it and bringing the corresponding emancipation of leaseholders. I will heed your strictures, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I do not have time to respond to all the specific points raised, such as points about freehold estates, service charges, development value and the retirement sector. Those were all well-made points, and, as ever, I am more than happy to speak to hon. Members outside of the Chamber. I assure the House that none of those issues are an afterthought. Where there are provisions in the 2024 Act, we are working at pace to take them forward; where there are issues outside of the draft Bill, such as freehold estates, we have consultations and are analysing feedback, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) knows. In our manifesto, we made a clear and unambiguous commitment to act where previous Governments had failed and finally bring the leasehold system to an end. The forthcoming commonhold and leasehold reform Bill is not the end of that story, but it is integral to honouring that manifesto commitment. As the Committee’s report rightly recognises, the draft legislation represents a significant step towards ending the leasehold system for good, delivering greater fairness for leaseholders while laying the foundations for a reinvigorated commonhold model. I am immensely grateful to the Committee for its detailed and thoughtful scrutiny of the draft Bill. Its report provides a valuable set of recommendations as we continue the process of augmenting, strengthening and refining the Bill for introduction. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee knows, we are considering each of those recommendations carefully, and I hope we can report back in the not too distant future. I want to make some very brief remarks about commonhold and ground rent, but before I do, let me address the main issue that has been the subject of today’s debate, which is that of property managing agents and the Committee’s recommendation that we establish a new, independent public body as a regulator of them, with enforcement powers. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and others who have mentioned the importance of control. I continue to believe that giving leaseholders control over the buildings they live in is our overriding priority, and that that will help to tackle the majority of abuses. However, I want to reassure hon. Members that I have listened and heard the serious concerns raised on both sides of the House about the performance of managing agents, both on freehold estates and in leasehold blocks—I know from my own caseload how serious these problems are. Managing agents play a key role in the maintenance of multi-occupancy buildings and freehold estates, and as the shadow Minister said, their importance will only grow as we transition towards a commonhold future. That is precisely why we have committed to strengthen the regulation of managing agents. As hon. Members know—it has been mentioned several times—the previous Government committed in 2018 to regulate the property agents sector. It asked a working group chaired by Lord Best, who I am very pleased to see in the Gallery, to advise them on how to do it, yet over multiple years they failed to act on that report’s findings. We have already progressed work on a number of those recommendations, including mandatory professional qualifications. However, I will state candidly that in taking forward those and other measures designed to strengthen the regulation of managing agents, we have a choice about how we do so. We face those choices in the context of a substantive Bill that is already around 260 clauses and 20 schedules and could grow further, and the fact that we have made very clear—I stress this point again to hon. Members—that this is not the only piece of legislation required to meet our manifesto commitments. Other pieces of primary legislation are required, not least to enact the remaining Law Commission recommendations on enfranchisement and the right to manage. I want to make it clear, though, that I take very seriously the Committee’s recommendation of a new independent regulator. I am certainly not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and rule one out—indeed, I am personally extremely sympathetic to it—but we will set our overarching position on the regulation of estate, letting and managing agents in due course. I can assure hon. Members that in finalising that position, we will continue to consider all aspects of Lord Best’s report. I can feel your eyes upon me, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am going to skirt over commonhold—I am more than happy to speak to any hon. Members who have particular concerns about that—and speak briefly about ground rents. In particular, I want to touch on the decision the Government made in the draft Bill. We committed in our manifesto to “tackle unregulated and unaffordable ground rent charges”, and we are delivering on that commitment through the Bill. As hon. Members know, the draft Bill will cap ground rents at £250 a year initially, changing to a peppercorn after 40 years. This will deliver immediate relief for hundreds of thousands of leaseholders during this Parliament, and over the lifetime of that policy position, it will save leaseholders between £10 billion and £12.7 billion. It is a significant intervention. After 40 years, all ground rents will change to a peppercorn, ensuring that they are brought to an end in their entirety. However, it is our view that a 40-year transitional period is necessary to avoid unintended consequences and ensure stability for leaseholders and the wider property market. This is a balanced and fair solution to the problems caused by unaffordable, unregulated ground rents. I agree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee that the cap must be introduced as soon as possible, so that leaseholders can benefit from reduced costs and more easily access mortgage financing when looking to move home. Subject to parliamentary timings, we are seeking to introduce the ground rent cap by 2028 at the latest. That is not the end of 2028—it is a point in time in 2028 at the latest—but I want to stress the words “at the latest”. It is up to this House to ensure that pieces of legislation progress more quickly. Before concluding, I can helpfully clarify the answer to the very specific question that the shadow Minister put to me. There is no ambiguity about the fixes that need to be made to the 2024 Act. It is really unfortunate that we have to make fixes to that Act. We should not be repairing primary legislation through new primary legislation, but we confirmed in the King’s Speech on 13 May that fixes to those flaws will be included in the forthcoming substantive Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill. To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green for applying for this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it, and all those who have participated in it for sharing their concerns, insights and case studies. I look forward to providing the Committee with a formal response to its report as quickly as we possibly can—notwithstanding the current constraints—and I look forward to continued engagement with the Committee as our substantive Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill progresses and as we continue to implement those reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute.