Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 18 Nov 2025 · Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) on securing the debate. I also note the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery). I remind hon. Members, as I always do at the outset of my remarks, that due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, I am unable to comment on individual local plans, planning applications or, for that matter, how individual local planning authorities—including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth—may interpret national planning policy. As my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, it is also the case that a number of the specific issues she raised are the sole responsibility of the Department for Transport. I understand from DFT officials that proposals in respect of Moor Farm roundabout are being considered by National Highways as part of the road investment strategy pipeline. While my Department and the DFT obviously work closely together on all aspects of legislation, policy and guidance concerning shared priorities, my hon. Friend will, I hope, appreciate that it is not for me to comment in any way on those specific proposals. As my hon. Friend knows, my ministerial colleagues in the DFT are aware of her strongly held views on the matter, not least as a result of the June Westminster Hall debate that she secured on it, but I will ensure that the points that she has made today are drawn to their attention. I will seek to respond as best I can in the time available to the various matters and questions that she raised, in so far as they fall within my responsibilities. My hon. Friend drew attention to the importance of local development plans. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that their areas need. Importantly, local development plans should address needs and opportunities in relation to infrastructure and identify what infrastructure is required and how it might be funded and brought forward. This aspect of a plan, including its relationship with housing, is publicly examined by an independent inspector to determine whether a local plan is sound and can be adopted. Planning practice guidance recommends that, when preparing a local plan, local planning authorities use available evidence of infrastructure requirements to prepare an infrastructure funding statement. Such statements can be used to demonstrate the delivery of infrastructure throughout the plan period. It is precisely because up-to-date local plans are integral to the functioning of our planning system that we are determined to drive local plans to adoption, and progress towards our ambition of achieving universal plan coverage, as quickly as possible. Although I appreciate that all that does not offer any immediate solution to the transport infrastructure challenges highlighted by my hon. Friend, increased local plan coverage will support better land use and transport planning. I understand that North Tyneside council is progressing a plan in the existing plan-making system and intends to submit by December 2026, and that Northumberland county council intends to prepare a new plan once the new plan-making system commences. I know that my hon. Friend will do whatever she can to support both authorities with progressing their plan-making efforts, and officials from my Department would be happy to meet officers at Northumberland and North Tyneside councils to discuss any specific issues of concern they have in respect of their plan-making activities. My hon. Friend raised concerns about the role of statutory consultees in the planning system. She drew particular attention to the use of holding directions. The Government recognise that the statutory consultee system is not currently working effectively. In far too many instances, statutory consultee engagement with planning applications is not proactive or proportionate, and advice and information provided are not timely or commensurate with what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. In turn, local planning authorities and developers too frequently provide inadequate or poor-quality information or make blanket and inappropriate referrals to statutory consultees. That said, the role of statutory consultees in the planning system is important. When they engage and are engaged effectively in the planning application process, they support good decision making and high-quality development through the swift provision of expert advice and information on significant environmental, safety, heritage and transport issues. The Government are determined to improve the functioning of the statutory consultee system, to facilitate confident and timely decision making. To that end, we have this very day published a consultation document on reforms to the system. The objective of the proposals outlined in that document is to ensure that statutory consultees are focused on providing practical, pragmatic and timely advice and expertise in respect of what is necessary to make development acceptable, and that local planning authorities are not engaging with statutory consultees where it is not necessary to do so. If taken forward, the reforms would mean that bodies such as National Highways and Active Travel England would need to consider up to 40% fewer applications. That would mean the saving of time and effort for both house builders and councils. This is an important step towards a faster, more efficient planning system that supports housing delivery. My hon. Friend asked what my Department is doing to boost growth and advance devolution in the north-east. She will know that local leadership and local growth plans, such as the north-east growth plan, are the cornerstone of this Government’s place-based approach to unlocking economic growth. The interventions and investments identified through those plans are focused on addressing key barriers to growth and building on existing strengths and local assets, such as those she mentioned. Our shared transport priority recognises the need to improve transport connectivity and unlock housing development and commercial activity by ensuring that new development is supported by the public transport network and that pinch points on the road network are addressed.

• 18 Nov 2025 · Infrastructure: Cramlington and Killingworth · Hansard source

  More

  I well understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is not for me, as the Minister of State for Housing and Planning, to make determinations on individual transport projects that are being considered through the road investment strategy pipeline. My Department has additional capital funds of its own to deploy for land and infrastructure in respect of the new national housing delivery fund. That will be part of the integrated settlement for the Mayor of the North East to consider but, in this instance, consideration is being taken forward by the DFT as part of the road investment strategy pipeline, as I said. I am giving my hon. Friends the Members for Blyth and Ashington and for Cramlington and Killingworth my perspective as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as to how the planning system in the round considers such matters. The frameworks I was referring to will help to attract public and private investment, unlocking opportunities for people and business across the region. As the North East takes its plan forward, it should feel empowered to use the plan and our shared priorities as the basis for engaging with the Government, the DFT in particular, and other key partners in the region. The plans are backed by £1.79 billion for the North East combined authority from the transport for city regions funding for 2027-28 through to 2031-32, on top of the wider funding from the city region sustainable transport settlements. My hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth reiterated her long-standing concerns about the various problems associated with freehold estates. She and I have discussed the matter numerous times. We have had debates on the subject and the House considered the issue in some detail recently, on 30 October, so I do not intend to restate the Government’s position in its entirety. Suffice it to say that we remain fully committed to protecting residential freeholders on such estates from unfair charges and to ending the injustice of fleecehold entirely by reducing the prevalence of private estate management arrangements. As we have promised, we will consult on these matters before the end of the year, and my hon. Friend and her constituents can feed into our proposals at that point. We remain on track to bring those consultations forward. I commend my hon. Friend again for securing the debate. I thank her, as ever, for the clarity with which she made her arguments and in particular demonstrated the link, which we absolutely acknowledge, between strategic infrastructure and housing delivery, and for the passion with which she and my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington spoke in favour of the specific project that they want to see come forward. I emphasise once again that the Government are seeking to drive improvements across the whole system to prevent similar issues in future and to unlock development. I note the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on the specific infrastructure projects that she referenced. As I made clear at the start, I have already had a conversation with the relevant Ministers in the DFT, but I will draw their attention to the remarks made today and our Department will continue to engage with the DFT on these and other projects where housing considerations are pertinent. I look forward to continuing to engage with my hon. Friend to ensure that the changes that the Government have made already, along with those still to come, are to the lasting benefit of her constituents—as well as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington—and I thank her for bringing these matters to the House’s attention today. Question put and agreed to.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not give way again. I will make some progress on the next set of amendments, which I need to get to, as I know many Members wish to speak. As I was saying on Lords amendment 2, the Government support the intent of the amendment. However, subsections (7) and (8) of the new clause would require consents for listed buildings, conservation areas and archaeological sites to be obtained separately from the application for development consent for dams or reservoirs. We cannot support those subsections. Lords amendment 3 is also problematic. It introduces additional notification and representation processes into the nationally significant infrastructure project regime when 20 or more residences are to be demolished in constructing dam or reservoir projects, despite such matters already being addressed by the Planning Act 2008. Both amendments are contrary to the intention of the NSIP regime, which introduced a streamlined “one- stop shop” approach to obtaining consents. It is the Government’s considered view that the regime already provides ample opportunity for those issues to be considered before the relevant Secretary of State makes their decision. Numerous adequate heritage safeguards and opportunities for communities and interested parties to have their say about dam and reservoir projects are already in place. In respect of heritage concerns in particular, the national policy statement for water resources contains explicit policy on preserving the historical environment. When deciding whether to grant consent, the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building, conservation area or scheduled monument where applications affect these assets. In respect of the demolition of homes, again, the Planning Act already provides sufficient safeguards for the compulsory acquisition of land. For those reasons, I urge the House to support an amendment to remove subsections (7) and (8) from Lords amendment 2 and to reject Lords amendment 3 in its entirety. Turning to Lords amendment 31, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks, the Government are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. The right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who is not in his place, made a strong case on Report for greater accessibility requirements for electric vehicle charge points. As he knows, I made a personal commitment to him to give further consideration to the arguments he made. The objective he sought is echoed in Lords amendment 31, which seeks to amend the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 to enable the mandating of accessibility requirements for public charge points through regulations. As the House will know, the Government are already working closely with the sector to update the current accessibility standards for public charge points. However, I have been convinced that we should use the Bill to provide further certainty in respect of this matter, and we have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu that is faithful to the original amendment agreed in the other place, with some minor changes designed to ensure that the powers cover all relevant aspects of accessibility for public charge points and that requirements can be placed on all relevant parties that play a role in delivering them. The Government will of course consult before producing and laying the relevant regulations. The Department for Transport looks forward to working with both the Scottish and Welsh Governments on these matters. On that basis, I hope the House will support our amendment in lieu. Lords amendment 32 would require the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of current regulation on low-hazard reservoirs and to set out proposals for deregulation of such reservoirs within six months of enactment. An assessment of the impact of current reservoir safety regulation has already been published on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ science search website. Furthermore, the Government already intend to set out proposals for the deregulation of low-hazard reservoirs within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I also commit to clarifying planning practice guidance for the permitted development right that grants planning permission for the development of on-farm reservoirs, giving clarity to farmers about when this permitted development right can be used. Given that the Government have fulfilled one aspect of the amendment already, and I have committed to fulfilling the rest today, we are clear that there is no need to legislate on the matter. I therefore urge the House to reject this amendment. Lords amendment 33 seeks to make the first set of regulations for the national scheme of delegation subject to the affirmative procedure. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the use of the negative procedure in respect of these regulations. We have already consulted on detailed proposals to help inform the regulations, and the clause itself imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to consult again on the draft regulations before they are brought into force. This consultation duty will apply not only to the first set of regulations, but for any subsequent changes to those regulations. In the light of the two rounds of consultation planned before those regulations are laid, I urge the House to reject this amendment.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor will set out her decisions on the Budget in fairly short order and the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that. I am going to be quite strict in sticking to the contents of the Bill and what is in scope, rather than ranging more widely, as he tempts me to do. The amendments we tabled in the summer package provided greater confidence that the NRF delivers the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. I take the opportunity to thank all the hon. Members who engaged in constructive discussions with the Government about the NRF during Commons stages, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) for his thoughtful participation in Committee, which helped shape my thinking about the package of amendments in question. I should also make clear that the Government tabled further technical amendments in the other place to ensure that the NRF works effectively across borders, as well as ensuring it is able to operate in the marine environment. Those amendments also ensure that the NRF can be used to support the impact of development on Ramsar sites. In addition, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Lord Banner in the other place to ensure that the NRF can accommodate the development processes associated with large strategic housing sites that are phased. Turning to the amendments made by peers in the other place, I want to make clear that the Government welcomed the scrutiny and challenge provided, and that we are willing to make sensible concessions in some areas. However, I am afraid that most of the amendments sent back to this place seek to undermine the core principles of the Bill, and for that reason we cannot accept them. Let me make clear precisely why, in each instance where that is the case. Lords amendment 1 would prevent the removal of existing parliamentary requirements that serve to delay material policy amendments to national policy statements. In short, it is a wrecking amendment designed to frustrate the Government’s intention to streamline the process for incorporating into NPSs changes that have already received public and parliamentary scrutiny. Let me emphasise once again that the intent of clause 2 is not to erode parliamentary scrutiny; it is simply about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the four categories of changes the clause covers. That said, I have always recognised the sincere arguments made by various hon. and right hon. Members, as well as by noble Lords, about the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny in respect of NPSs. That is precisely why I provided the Chair of the Liaison Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) with a number of assurances on Report. For the purposes of clarity, let me repeat those assurances. When the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to an NPS, a statement will be laid before Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. In other words, Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. To assuage further the concerns that some hon. Members might have about a reduction in scrutiny as a result of the clause, I am happy to provide a further commitment today: when a statement is laid in Parliament announcing a review, it will include how the proposed change or changes fall within the four categories of changes to which clause 2 applies. I cannot, however, accept Lords amendment 1 for the reasons I have set out, and I urge the House to reject it. Turning next to Lords amendments 2 and 3, Lords amendment 2 enables faster consenting of major water infrastructure projects. Crucially, it allows third party providers, appointed by water undertakers, to apply to deliver such projects through the streamlined development consent order route.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate. I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her. Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order. I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity. We hope that with this assurance, and a view to future opportunity for consultation on the matter, the House will reject Lords amendment 37. Lords amendment 38 would require a spatial development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments. While I appreciate fully the positive intent of the amendment and reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to restoring and improving the nation’s chalk streams, I do not believe that it is a necessary or advisable means of protecting those vital ecosystems. While strategic planning authorities will be expected to work closely with arm’s length bodies like the Environment Agency, they themselves will not have responsibility for regulatory systems governing water abstraction or pollution in catchment areas. The SDSs that they will be required to produce will be high-level frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment; they will not allocate specific sites. Importantly, as locally-led spatial exercises, local nature recovery strategies, drawing on river basin management plans, will be able to map out chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them, and SDSs will already be required to take account of any local nature recovery strategy that relates to the strategy area. SDSs will also obviously be tested by an independent examiner against those requirements. It remains the Government’s view that the protection and enhancement of chalk streams through the planning system is best achieved through the proper application of national planning policy. As I made clear on Report in the Commons, the measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections enjoyed by those precious habitats, which are already recognised by decision makers in the planning system as valued landscapes and sites of biodiversity value that should be identified and safeguarded through local plans. That said, we have been giving this matter careful consideration given the strength of feeling expressed by the Commons on Report, and in the context of ongoing reforms to national planning policy. I am happy to make it clear to the House that I am minded to include explicit recognition of chalk streams in the new suite of national policies for decision making, which I referred to in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi)—and, as I said, we intend to consult on those before the end of this year. On the basis of that assurance, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 38. Lords amendment 39 seeks to prioritise development on brownfield land, increase urban densities and minimise travel distances. The Government have a brownfield-first approach to development. Through the revisions made to the NPPF on 12 December 2024, we broadened the definition of brownfield land, set a strengthened expectation that applications on brownfield land will be approved, and made it clear that plans should promote an uplift in density in urban areas. In September last year, the Government published a brownfield passport working paper, inviting views on how we might further prioritise and fast-track building on previously used urban land. Again, we intend to take forward those proposals in the new suite of national policies for decision making that I referred to a moment ago.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, we did not.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised. I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today. Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days. That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted. On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand. We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date. Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period. If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes. Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward. In his contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should: “Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”. In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications. As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but the Government have been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need not and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 unlocks a win-win for nature and the economy. Although I cannot commit future Governments to anything, we are confident that the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans that part 3 facilitates will result in the delivery of more homes and infrastructure in a more timely manner, as well as improved environmental outcomes. In respect of Lords amendment 40, I would simply say that there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing their use in supporting the recovery of protected sites and species where appropriate. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is now explicit that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Moreover, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP, and EDPs will be subject to robust scrutiny. On Third Reading in the other place, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of developments. Lords amendment 40 would undermine one of the core principles of the Bill —namely, that the alternative approach provided for by the NRF can apply to both sites and species. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts, as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the point my hon. Friend makes, but I do not agree that the change will mean Select Committees do not have the opportunity to feed their views into Government. As I said, what we are trying to do with the clause is ensure that the scrutiny provided is proportionate to the changes being made. These are, in most cases, minor and reflective changes. They do not entail the full amendment of a national policy statement; that would have to come via the normal route. I hope my comments on what we expect of Minister’s attendance at Select Committees and in other areas provides her with reassurance.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development. Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up. A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Sustained economic growth is the only route to delivering the improved prosperity our country needs and the higher living standards working people deserve. That is why it has always been this Government’s No. 1 mission. This landmark Bill, which will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, is integral to the success of that mission, and it will play a vital part in delivering the Government’s plan for change milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. The Government are therefore determined to ensure that the Bill receives Royal Assent as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the House has an opportunity today to renew its commitment to this vital legislation and express its firm opposition to attempts to undermine its core principles. Before I turn to the amendments before us, let me put on record once again my heartfelt thanks to Baroness Taylor for her prodigious efforts in guiding the Bill through the other place, and my gratitude to peers collectively for the comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny to which they subjected it. The Government made a number of important changes to the Bill in the other place, with a view to ensuring that it will work as intended, that its full potential in respect of unlocking economic growth is realised, and to provide further reassurance that a number of its key provisions will achieve the beneficial outcomes that we expect. In the interests of time, I will update the House briefly on the two most significant areas of change. The first concerns the package of measures we introduced last month to maximise the growth potential of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, the Bill’s impact assessment estimates that it could benefit the UK economy by up to £7.5 billion over the next 10 years. That is an assessment, it should be noted, that was made prior to the incorporation into the Bill of several important pro-growth measures, including the removal of the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications—a change that could result in cost savings of over £1 billion across the pipeline of projects in this Parliament. The package introduced last month further bolsters the growth impact of the Bill. It included provisions that further streamline the consenting of reservoirs, clarify Natural England’s strategic advisory role, and facilitate the deployment of up to three additional gigawatts of onshore wind and secure the billions of pounds’ worth of investment into UK services that come with that. The second area of change concerns the package of amendments we tabled in July in respect of part 3 of the Bill, which directly addressed a range of issues that were highlighted in the advice the Government received from the Office for Environmental Protection on the new nature restoration fund. They provided for a number of additional safeguards, strengthened and made more explicit those that were already in the Bill on its introduction, and further clarified how the NRF will operate going forward. I emphasise that none of the changes made will affect the process by which house builders interact with an environmental delivery plan, namely by paying a levy to discharge specific environmental obligations through it, and nor do they undermine the strategic approach that underpins the model.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply. Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities. It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall. The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement. By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech. In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made. On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites. Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system. On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature. I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system. I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case. Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill. Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have. We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities. Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further. To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles. I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  That is a fair question and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next point that I was going to make, specifically about local accountability. This is important. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals going through that process. Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on their area, which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application. The examination process, which all NSIP applicants need to go through, provides the opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for them to be considered by the examining authority in examination of the application and in the subsequent report that will be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, the NSIP regime provides for local communities, local authorities, other statutory consultees and stakeholders to input into that process. In a similar way to how a local planning authority undertakes a period of consultation to enable views on a planning application to be expressed, the examination process under the NSIP regime—which all NSIP applications must go through—provides the opportunity for local communities and interested parties to make representations to be taken into account by the examining authority in examination of the application and by the Secretary of State when they come to decide whether to grant development consent. In the time I have, I should respond to a couple of other issues that were raised. Power usage was a point made by the hon. Members for Orpington and for Taunton and Wellington. Energy and carbon footprint are a key issue for data centres. The sector operates under a climate change agreement to encourage greater uptake of energy efficiency measures among operators. The UK has committed to decarbonising the electricity system by 2030, subject to security of supply, and data centres will increasingly be powered by renewable energy resources. Newer, purpose-built and modern data centres can provide compute at a higher efficiency than older, converted data centres, in terms of the amount of power they draw on, but data centres will play a major part in powering the high-tech solutions to environmental challenges, whether that is new technology that increases the energy efficiency of energy use across our towns and cities, or development and application of innovative new tech that takes carbon out of the atmosphere. We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through. Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses. One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for her question, but she tempts me to stray way outside my departmental responsibilities. Instead, I commit to ensure that the relevant Minister from DESNZ is notified about her concerns and that we all reflect, as a Government, on the point made. In conclusion, notwithstanding the range of considerations about data centres that we have discussed, I wish to draw the Committee back to what the draft regulations seek to achieve. They are merely an enabler for data centres that might be considered of national significance to be capable—only at the request of developers of such projects—of being directed to an alternative mechanism for obtaining development consent. Applications for data centres directed to the NSIP consenting route will undergo a thorough and robust process. As I said, that will include examination by an independent examining authority where local communities and others can participate and register their views before the Secretary of State decides whether to grant consent. I hope that the Committee will agree that it has considered these amending regulations and will be supportive of them. Question put and agreed to.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—for the first time, I believe. The regulations were laid before the House on 15 October. The Government have identified data centres, the buildings that store much of the data generated in the UK, as essential infrastructure that is necessary to support, grow and develop the UK economy and that is integral to delivering the UK industrial strategy. As hon. Members know, data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology. It is increasingly critical for public service delivery and how citizens interact with one another and the state. For those reasons the Government formally designated data centres as a sub-sector of communications in the list of critical national infrastructure in September 2024—a recognition that their loss or compromise could severely impact the delivery of essential services or have a significant impact on national security, national defence or the functioning of the state, as is the case with other CNIs: energy, water, transport and other sectors. The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres. In July last year we consulted on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, given their importance to our economic future. In response to feedback from a wide range of stakeholders we announced plans alongside the publication of that revised NPPF in December last year to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process. These regulations deliver on that announcement by prescribing data centres as a type of business or commercial project that may be directed into the NSIP consenting regime. In effect, they add data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects set out in the schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013. The inclusion of data centres as prescribed business or commercial projects means that certain proposed data centre projects are capable of being directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. It is important to stress that the regulations we are debating today do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route. The regulations will provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they wish to do so, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process. Circumstances where a developer may wish to make such a request include, to provide the Committee with just a few examples, where a proposal also involves associated energy generation; where it may be particularly large or complex; or where it could benefit from the one-stop shop approach that the NSIP consenting process provides for. To be clear, sections 35 and 35ZA of the Planning Act 2008 would require developers of a data centre project to submit a qualifying request to the Secretary of State. They may direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they consider that the project or proposed project is of national significance, and that it meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of that Act. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting, as we speak, a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as one of national significance and so capable of meeting the requirements of section 35. Similar to national policy statements for other sectors of infrastructure covered by the NSIP regime such as energy, transport and water, the NPS that DSIT is currently preparing will also set out a national policy and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. This will provide greater certainty to applicants and decision makers alike. DSIT is aiming to publish a draft NPS for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the requirements of sections 7 and 9 of the 2008 Act shortly after these regulations are proposed to come into force. The published draft NPS may also be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that has been directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process. In the meantime, the written statement that was published alongside the existing 2013 regulations states that the Secretary of State will consider “all relevant matters” when considering whether a project is of national significance. That incudes considering whether the project is of a “substantial physical size”, is likely to have a “significant economic impact” or is important for driving growth in the economy. To conclude, what we are discussing today is merely the mechanism by which certain data centre proposal zones deemed to be of national significance may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision, whether to give a direction to opt in to a different planning route—the NSIP consenting route—rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 planning process. The legislation enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State’s direction. We are taking the proposals forward on the basis of receiving an overall favourability of responses to our consultation on them, and because of the important role that such data centres have in supporting the Government’s economic growth mission. I hope that the Committee will agree that the changes are sensible and proportionate steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for that series of points and questions, to which I will do my best to respond—I note that some of them stray outside of my departmental responsibilities. We are talking specifically about putting in place necessary changes to the planning regime to allow formal requests to be made for data centres to be considered under section 35. Other things, such as the spatial plans that the Liberal Democrat spokesman just mentioned, are matters for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the NPS is obviously a matter for Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. However, I will make sure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of the comments of the hon. Members. I will start by responding to the points made about the draft NPS. That NPS is still in development and testing. Given the time that it may take to comply with the statutory requirements for designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate in this instance to lay the draft SI in advance. As I made clear, we intend to publish the NPS in draft form near the time at which this SI will come into force. The laying of the SI last month gives an indication to the sector—and the Government think that this is important—and to prospective data centre applicants at a very early stage in their development, who may be interested in using this route, that we are moving forward on delivering against the commitment we made last December. It also recognises the importance that we give to the delivery of data infrastructure more generally. DSIT aims to publish the draft NPS after these amending regulations come into force, so it is possible that it will be published before any requests for a data centre to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime either come forward or need to be decided. That would mean that the draft NPS would be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that is subsequently directed to proceed through the NSIP regime. The shadow Minister mentioned the changes that we are making through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will have a significant amount of time tomorrow to discuss amendments to that Bill. As the shadow Minister will know—and as the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will know, having been involved in scrutinising the Bill in Committee—we intend to publish pre-application guidance on what developers that want to submit a development consent order through the NSIP route should do. The consultation on the scope and design of our proposed guidance closed on 27 October. The responses to that consultation will inform the development of the guidance. Applicants will be expected to use engagement to deliver high-quality applications. There will still be an expectation of high-quality, early, meaningful, and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected, but we do believe—we had extensive arguments about this in the Bill Committee—that we need to move away from the rigid statutory requirements to this more flexible, guidance-led approach, which will improve flexibility for applicants to take into account community views and to respond appropriately to get the better outcomes. As we have discussed and as I have said many times, the current system is having a number of perverse outcomes that are not leading to beneficial results for that industry.