Samantha Dixon MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · Building Safety Regulator: Critical Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  We are working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to make sure the Building Safety Regulator aids the delivery of critical NHS infrastructure. That includes introducing a dedicated team within the BSR to focus specifically on hospitals, as well as producing targeted guidance for NHS trusts.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Building Safety Regulator: Critical Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear about the delays and problems in my right hon. Friend’s constituency and I want to reassure her that we are taking serious action on that particular matter. I will work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as the BSR, to try to improve the situation for her.

• 15 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard to support his constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme on these important issues. I am happy to meet him, but let me also reassure him that work to improve the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is ongoing and is bearing fruit.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Grenfell Tower Fire: Ninth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for raising this truly important issue. The ninth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy will be, above all else, a day of remembrance, shaped by loss, love and the enduring strength of this community. I want to begin by acknowledging the survivors and relatives of those who died at Grenfell Tower; I know they have the deepest sympathies of the whole House and our most profound respect. The fire at Grenfell Tower, which claimed 72 innocent lives, was a national tragedy and a scandalous chapter in British history. We will never forget what happened that night, and we must make sure nothing like it can ever happen again. I recognise how each anniversary is intensely personal and deeply painful for bereaved families, survivors and the wider community. I am also struck every day by the grit and resilience of this courageous community, not least in the way it leads the commemorations. The Government will continue to be guided by the community and honour its voice. As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, it is right that the community shapes how the day is marked and that we stand alongside it in support. I have had the privilege of meeting many members of the Grenfell community, and I carry with me a lasting impression of their strength and determination. I want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about justice and respond to them briefly. This Government recognise the importance of justice and acknowledge that it remains a central concern for the community. In the light of recent announcements, I want to respond to those concerns. The Metropolitan police has been investigating the Grenfell Tower tragedy since June 2017. It is one of the largest and most legally complex investigations the Met has ever conducted, with around 220 officers and staff dedicated to the investigation. Those responsible must be held to account, and we fully support the Met in its important work, which must remain independent. We also remain supportive of wider Government involvement, including from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and I know that on a cross-Government basis we are focused on ensuring that justice is served. We are mindful of this community’s enduring spirit at a time of continued change at the Grenfell Tower site. This Government will continue to support bereaved families and survivors and the local community, and to work with the independent Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission to create a memorial worthy of those we remember. The Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Act 2026 is now in force, providing the statutory authority needed to take forward the construction of the memorial and ensure its long-term care. The design team, Freehaus, is working with bereaved families, survivors and the local community to help shape the memorial. It is right that the voices of those most affected by the tragedy remain central to these decisions, guiding what comes next. The memorial will honour those who lost their lives and all those whose lives were changed forever. It will be a place for people to remember, to reflect and to pay their respects. This anniversary reminds us of our shared responsibility to honour the dead and to make sure that Grenfell’s legacy is shaped by those most directly affected. It is in that spirit that I now turn to what this Government are doing to make sure that such a tragedy can never happen again. As I set out in my recent written statement to the House, alongside the May 2026 Grenfell Tower inquiry progress report, the tragedy exposed deep and long-standing failures in the systems that were meant to keep people safe. The loss of 72 lives was a profound and preventable failure of oversight and accountability by industry, successive Governments and regulators. Bereaved families, survivors and the community continue to remind us of the human cost of those failures and the need for lasting change. The Government have accepted the inquiry’s findings and are taking forward reforms to build a stronger and more accountable building safety system. Since February 2025, we have completed 21 of the inquiry’s recommendations, and we remain on track to deliver all recommendations by the end of 2029. We recognise that too often, inquiry recommendations have been made and accepted but not implemented, and we are determined that that will not be the case here. We are continuing to explore ways to improve transparency and accountability so that the public can see that the Government are following through on their commitments. We accepted the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s recommendation to maintain a public record of recommendations made by inquiries. That tracker was published on gov.uk last summer and shows the progress made on implementing recommendations from 2024 onwards. It will be updated regularly and expanded to capture new inquiries as they conclude. I note my hon. Friend’s comments on the national oversight mechanism, and I know how important that is to the bereaved and to survivors, notably Grenfell United. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is also conducting an inquiry into this issue. We welcome that work, and have submitted evidence to support the Committee’s inquiry. The Government have been clear that supplier exclusion must be carried out in line with the Procurement Act 2023, and must not jeopardise the ongoing criminal investigation. The pause does not prevent the Cabinet Office from resuming or undertaking future debarment investigations. In the interim, we have taken steps to stop senior officials and Ministers associating with the seven most highly criticised companies in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report. Across Government, Ministers and officials will no longer share platforms with those firms. As the Secretary of State set out to Parliament earlier this year, remediation remains a central priority. In the King’s Speech, we set out our commitment to bring forward the remediation of unsafe cladding Bill—a decisive step towards fixing the cladding crisis and making sure that those responsible are held to account. We will introduce a new legal duty to remediate, requiring those responsible to identify and fix unsafe cladding promptly, or risk criminal prosecution. Where they do not act, a new remediation backstop will allow a third party to step in and carry out the work. Each building made safe means fewer families left waiting, and real progress in helping people move on with their lives. We will never forget those we lost, and we remain focused on making sure that such a tragedy never happens again. Grenfell was the result of deep and widespread failings, and it is our responsibility to address them. As we continue with these efforts, we remain firmly committed to supporting the Grenfell community. We recognise the profound impact of the tragedy on the whole community, and in particular on children and young people. Working with the Department for Education, we have provided more than £800,000 in additional funding to support the physical health and emotional wellbeing of children and young people in schools serving the Grenfell community, as the tower is carefully taken down. That is alongside a further £8 million provided by the Department of Health and Social Care to support the physical health and wellbeing of the community during this period. Our thoughts are also with the residents living in the community around Grenfell Tower. They deserve safe, high-quality homes. Refurbishment work on the Lancaster West estate, led by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and supported by further Government funding, will make a real difference. That work must be shaped by the views of residents themselves, as they know their community best. We expect swift progress from RBKC in response to the C3 regulatory judgment by the Regulator of Social Housing, and the regulator continues to engage intensively with RBKC on its improvement activities. I am concerned to hear my hon. Friend’s comments about the change in RBKC’s scrutiny arrangements and will seek further advice about that. In addition, we will continue to explore stronger and more independent oversight to ensure that RBKC sets the standard of an exemplar council, and so homes are delivered to the standard and at the pace people rightly expect. As I come to a close, I acknowledge that I am the latest in a long line of Ministers who has had responsibility for the Government’s response to the tragedy and the recommendations from the inquiry, and I acknowledge that that is hard and difficult. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater for the tenacity and constancy that he has shown to the community he represents with such determination. As we look ahead to the future of the homes and the community around Grenfell, we are reminded once again of the strength that is shown in how people come together to remember, to support one another and to make sure that those who were lost are never forgotten. That strength must also guide us, and I pledge to the House that we will continue with determination, guided by those most affected, so that the legacy of Grenfell is one of lasting change. Question put and agreed to.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, for their constructive and important points today. I can reassure Members that there is considerable work going on in this area. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire has misunderstood; I will be generous. The purpose of the regulations when they were initially introduced was to encourage all eligible developers to sign up to the scheme. They did so, which is why none are on the prohibited list. I hope that clarifies for him why there is nothing on the prohibited list. The developers work with the Department. Indeed, last month the Secretary of State and I met developers, the Building Safety Regulator and freeholders to discuss the developer remediation contract. We hold developers to account for their remediation progress, including with a dedicated caseworker team, and we scrutinise detailed quarterly data returns. To reassure the right hon. Gentleman, a full impact assessment was published alongside the original regulations. The regulations in front of us today tidy up what were, to be charitable, quickly drawn-up regulations that need to be amended so that they work effectively and appropriately. I thank the hon. Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for their remarks. The Government plan to bring forward a remediation Bill when parliamentary time allows. More details will come forward at that point. In closing, the regulations make important technical amendments to the 2023 regulations. They remove drafting ambiguities, clarify how the prohibitions operate in practice, and make sure key exceptions, whether for emergency repairs, routine maintenance or home purchases, work as they were intended to, to protect residents and leaseholders. The amendments do not change the requirements on developers to remediate. Question put and agreed to.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am pleased to speak about this statutory instrument, which as Members will see contains a set of technical amendments to the Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) Regulations 2023. The instrument is designed to ensure that the regulations work exactly as intended, with clear, workable rules for regulators and building control professionals, and effective protections for third parties. By way of context, the responsible actors scheme exists to make sure that eligible developers take responsibility for remediating life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings over 11 metres that they developed or refurbished in the 30 years to 4 April 2022. Forty-five developers have joined the responsible actors scheme. Together, they are responsible for remediating more than 2,500 buildings, at an estimated cost of around £4.1 billion. The scheme is backed by planning and building control prohibitions, which would be applied to eligible developers that decide not to join the scheme or have their membership revoked for non-compliance, as well as to entities they control. The amendments in the instrument are concerned with how those prohibitions and their exceptions would operate in practice if a developer is prohibited in the future. Since the scheme was launched in 2023, technical drafting issues and ambiguities have been identified. The purpose of the instrument is to address those issues, so that protections for residents and purchasers of property work as intended if prohibitions are needed. First, the instrument will remove an ambiguity in the 2023 regulations. If a developer were to be prohibited, that developer should not be able to make building control applications, but the original regulations did not spell that out explicitly in the list of prohibited matters. The amendments resolve that by making clear that building control applications are included wherever the prohibitions apply. The amendments also update terminology, so that the process of issuing completion and partial completion certificates matches the way that building control now operates, preventing confusion for local authorities and private registered building control approvers. Secondly, the instrument will ensure that the emergency repairs exception works properly. Under the exception, emergency safety repairs are allowed to go ahead if a developer is prohibited. For taller buildings, there is a route to get such work formally signed off afterwards, but an omission in the 2023 regulations means that that route does not currently exist for buildings below 18 metres in height. The amendments correct this, creating a route so that, should such a situation arise, urgent safety work can be properly checked and signed off for all buildings.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend tempts me to get into a debate about the efficacy of the original—

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  There are no firms on the prohibitions list. However, as I stated, the Government are prepared to use the sanctions available, should they be required in the future. I will fulfil my commitment to write to the right hon. Gentleman with the full details in due course, if he will permit me to do so. Thirdly, the draft regulations strengthen the exception that allows normal maintenance to continue in occupied residential buildings. This exception is there to ensure that routine upkeep can carry on, and that residents are not put at risk if their freeholder or responsible entity has been prohibited. At present, there are technical issues with how the relevant building control processes are set out. The amendments clarify the procedural routes available to building control professionals, and they ensure that where the exception applies, those responsible can use either the local authority building control route or the private building control route effectively. Fourthly, the draft regulations strengthen protections for homebuyers where a sale is already well advanced when a prohibition takes effect. As things stand, only the prohibited developer can apply for the exception needed to complete the transaction, which leaves purchasers reliant on a party that may not prioritise the application. That risks buyers being negatively affected by the prohibitions through no fault of their own. The amendments fix that issue by allowing the buyer to apply, giving homebuyers greater control and reducing the risk of avoidable delay. Finally, the draft regulations resolve drafting issues raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Some wording in the regulations created double negatives that could be read as limiting eligibility for the scheme to social housing providers, which was never the intention. The amendments remove that ambiguity. The draft regulations also remove a redundant notification requirement for developers, which served no practical purpose because planners would already rely on the official published list of prohibited developers. Taking it out simplifies the framework without affecting the planning prohibition. In summary, these are technical but important improvements. They ensure that, if the prohibitions were ever applied, the prohibitions and exceptions would operate clearly and consistently, protect residents and homebuyers from unintended impacts and give building control bodies the necessary clarity to use the prohibitions and exceptions effectively. These amendments will make the system clearer and more robust. The intent of the scheme remains the same: to make sure that developers that built unsafe buildings take responsibility for making them safe, and, in doing so, protect leaseholders from unfair costs. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific issue; I do not know the details of that particular development in that particular constituency, but I will write to him with the details of that particular business.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Draft Building Safety (Responsible Actors Scheme and Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I will simply say that although no prohibition has been effected, that is not to say that the Government would not do so in the future—I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am confident that the Electoral Commission will be able to perform that task, and I am sure that we will come back to those issues during line-by-line scrutiny. As with the other clauses in this part of the Bill, the provisions maintain close protection on the data of 14 and 15-year-olds, allowing disclosure of that information only when absolutely necessary and appropriate. Let me turn now to clause 12. In my explanation of clause 8, which provides for five circumstances in which the disclosure of under-16s’ information is permitted, I noted that clause 12 places further restrictions on three of those circumstances. Those restrictions apply to the following circumstances where clause 8 allows disclosure of information. The first is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of electoral registration or conduct duties. The second is where information is sent to someone for the purposes of criminal investigation into an electoral offence. The third is where information is sent to a person who has been nominated as that elector’s proxy. Where information has been shared in one of those three circumstances, the clause prevents the person who receives it from passing it on to anyone else. The clause also provides that someone who passes the information on to another person in one of those circumstances is guilty of a criminal offence punishable by a fine. As with the five clauses that precede it, clause 12 serves to ensure that the personal information of 14 and 15-year-olds is accessed and shared only when doing so is necessary and justified. Clause 13 is the penultimate clause in the group, which I am sure Members are glad to hear. The purpose of the clause is to provide flexibility in the regime that provides these protections, by making it possible for regulations to be made to adjust the protections. That might become necessary, for example, if new types of election or referenda are created in future, which might necessitate new groups having access to the data. Given the number and variety of changes the Bill proposes to our electoral system, such flexibility is simply good planning and avoids the risk of needing an emergency Bill to be rushed through Parliament should changes be needed. I immediately reassure hon. Members, however, that the scope of the power created by the clause is carefully limited and subject to important scrutiny requirements, as one would expect. The regulations that may be made using the power in the clause can be divided into five types. First, the power may be used to permit the disclosure of the electoral registration information of under-16s to additional recipients beyond those provided for in clauses 8, 9 and 11. Secondly, it may be used to set out the purposes for which such information, once shared, may be used, and to attach further restrictions. Such restrictions may include whether that information can be shared with further parties. Thirdly, the power may be used to amend clauses 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14. However, the amendments that may be made are subject to restrictions, which I will come to shortly. Fourthly, it may be used to create new offences relating to the disclosure of 14 and 15-year-olds’ electoral registration information, which are punishable by a fine, but not imprisonment. Fifthly, it may be used to apply the same restrictions that apply to disclosure by registration officers and those who currently assist them to any new categories of person who might be involved with the preparation of electoral registers and lists. Three important restrictions are placed on that power, ensuring that the flexibility it provides to ensure our electoral system remains fit for purpose as times change does not come at the cost of appropriate scrutiny. The first and most important restriction is that although the types of information protected by clause 7 may be added to using this power, the categories of protected information cannot be reduced from what is in the Bill at the point it becomes law. That ensures that the type of data protected by this clause cannot be chipped away. Secondly, before this power is used, the Secretary of State must consult the Electoral Commission and anyone else that the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. Finally, regulations exercising this power are subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure. I hope hon. Members will agree that the regulation-making power that this clause will create strikes the appropriate balance between appropriate legislative scrutiny and crucial flexibility to allow our electoral system to respond to external changes. Clause 14 is an interpretation clause. It simply serves to define terms used in clauses 7 to 13. None of the definitions presented in this clause is unusual or controversial. They include terms such as “voters register”, “local government election” and “recall petition” and are included simply to provide clarity and precision to the previous seven clauses of this Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 1 is the core operative provision in the Bill. It provides the Government with the statutory authority required for expenditure on the construction and long-term management of a Grenfell Tower memorial. It also authorises expenditure on preservation, archiving and exhibiting at any site where elements of the Grenfell Tower are laid to rest. It also permits land acquisition in support of those activities where needed, and for work to be done on that land. It ensures that all expenditure for these purposes is properly authorised by Parliament in accordance with established public finance principles. The clause does not determine the design of the memorial, the planning process, governance or ownership arrangements or decision-making responsibilities. The design remains with the community-led Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission and construction is subject to the statutory planning framework. The clause is tightly focused, allowing the Government to incur expenditure on the activities I have identified to the Committee. Clause 2 provides the short title of the Act. The short title will be the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Act 2026. I commend these clauses to the Committee. Question put and agreed to . Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill . The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair . Bill reported, without amendment . Bill read the Third time and passed.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Fire Station Closures · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I look forward to discussing them with him further, as I will no doubt be representing the Prime Minister in our meeting. In line with usual practice, and in recognition of the views raised, the Government will continue to keep our methodology under review when calculating the core spending power of local government for future years. I have noted Members’ comments. The hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes mentioned funding pressures. Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service will have access to £79.5 million in core spending power in 2026-27—a 4.1% increase compared with 2025-26. That strengthens the FRA’s ability to plan, invest and deliver for the communities it serves. Although the Government set the funding framework, decisions on how best to deploy resources to meet core responsibilities remains the responsibility of the FRA, ensuring a locally led response to local risk. I pay particular tribute to our on-call firefighters, who balance everyday lives, jobs, families and responsibilities with the exceptional commitment of responding to emergencies. Whether they are attending a fire in a rural village or a major incident in a city centre, their readiness and bravery command the respect of the whole House. In many rural areas, on-call firefighters are not just important; they are indispensable. Those communities rely heavily on their presence, their local knowledge and ability to respond rapidly. I firmly believe that the on-call model is invaluable to the communities that it serves. Although the Government recognises the challenges for services in which the on-call model is integral to operations, it can, with innovative and strategic thinking, work and offer real resilience within fire services. With sustained collaboration between Government, fire and rescue services and fire and rescue authorities, there is real opportunity to strengthen and revitalise the on-call workforce as part of a wider workforce strategy that sees on-call staff treated and respected as the professionals that they truly are. To support that work, the National Fire Chiefs Council has published detailed research into the sustainability of the retained duty system. This work has been shared with FRAs to inform future planning, improvement activity and local workforce strategies. The Government continue to engage closely with the sector on this important issue. More broadly, the Government remain committed to a reform agenda that supports the sector to evolve, professionalise and thrive. I am encouraged by the work of the ministerial advisory group for fire and rescue reform, which has brought together a wide range of voices to identify good practice and remove barriers to progress. I do, however, recognise that the funding formula as it stands is out of date. We are working on reforming it for the next spending review period. Operational decisions rightly must remain with local FRAs. I note that the Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue authority, in which the hon. Member’s party holds the majority, is consulting on these proposals. The consultation runs until 15 May, so I encourage all affected residents, firefighters and stakeholders to participate. Meanwhile, this Government will continue to support the sector with stable funding, a clear framework for reform—of the role of firefighters and FRAs and of funding—and an unwavering commitment to public safety. We will stand with firefighters as they continue to protect our communities with professionalism and courage. I thank the hon. Member once again for raising these important issues, and I look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that our fire and rescue services remain resilient, responsive and equipped for the challenges ahead. Question put and agreed to.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  The Government recognised last summer that the Building Safety Regulator needed to be reformed and brought in new leadership, and there has been a marked improvement in performance. Performance data is published monthly, so there is transparency on how the Building Safety Regulator is performing. In the final quarter of 2025, we saw the highest number of decisions—673—since the BSR commenced operations, and we are still pushing hard for further improvements.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  On 27 January, the Building Safety Regulator became an arm’s length body under the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. This was a major step towards creating a single construction regulator. The BSR continues to make strong progress on overhauling its operating model. Only the most complex legacy new build cases remain, and new applications are being approved near the 12-week target, through the innovation unit. The BSR is building on this progress, and is focusing on delivering improvements in respect of remediation and the occupation regime.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  Performance continues to improve steadily across gateway 2, and decisions are being made increasingly quickly and at higher volumes. We will continue to press the BSR to do better, faster.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  MHCLG and the Building Safety Regulator accept that many applicants have experienced delays, and we recognise that having to wait 40 weeks for decisions is unacceptable. That is why the BSR has established a dedicated external remediation team, and is engaging with stakeholders to work through the detail of applications. A new batching model is being trialled to reduce the length of time taken to assess building control applications, while maintaining building and resident safety.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  In the last 12 weeks, 11,962 new-build homes have been approved, allowing construction to start. The BSR is moving forward. We will continue to press it to do better.

• 12 Jan 2026 · National Register of Electricians · Hansard source

  More

  The Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 require people to be competent or under supervision, while building regulations require domestic electrical work to be conducted safely. The Government see no need to establish a statutory national register of electricians, who may be listed on the registered competent person electrical register already. None the less, the Government will continue to work with the Building Safety Regulator on reforms of the competent person scheme to improve public and building safety.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on with my speech. The NPPF further states: “Development should, wherever possible, help to improve local environmental conditions such as air and water quality…Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that new development is appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects…of pollution on health, living conditions”—

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will carry on. In relation to decision making, the framework requires mineral planning authorities to “ensure that there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural and historic environment, human health or aviation safety”. The cumulative effect of multiple impacts from individual sites or a number of sites in a locality should also be taken into account. Mineral planning authorities should also make sure that “any unavoidable noise, dust and particle emissions and any blasting vibrations are controlled, mitigated or removed at source, and establish appropriate noise limits for extraction in proximity to noise sensitive properties”. As well as policies specifically on minerals, the NPPF includes policies in relation to air quality, which was raised by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire, and pollution. They make it clear that both planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing new and existing development from contributing to, being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by, unacceptable levels of air pollution.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to take any interventions. The NPPF continues: “and the natural environment, as well as the potential sensitivity of the site or the wider area to impacts that could arise from the development.” That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes).

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Murrison. I know that the issue of increased HGV movements and congestion is important to hon. Members. Although quarry development can often result in additional HGV movements, where necessary, access roads can be constructed and routeing agreements can be made to reduce the impact on local roads, residents and the environment.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I will just finish my sentence. I would be most grateful if the hon. Member for South Leicestershire set out his specific concerns to me in writing, so that I can make sure that a response to every point he has raised is forthcoming. Similarly, I would encourage other Members to write to set out their concerns.