Ellie Chowns MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 92, Clause 62, page 93, line 42, leave out from “features” to the end of line 2 on page 94 and insert— “are funded by the developer. This amendment would define the purpose of the nature restoration levy as being that costs incurred in maintaining and improving the conservation status of environmental features should be met by developers.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I fully support this.

• 15 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Tenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in very strong support of amendment 18 to clause 50, which is one of a number of amendments I have tabled to part 3. I have significant concerns about part 3—concerns clearly shared by a wide range of environmental organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and by many prominent scientists. Amendment 18 seeks to ensure that irreplaceable habitats, those rare and exceptional ecosystems that, once lost, cannot be recreated, are explicitly excluded from being subjected to environmental delivery plans under the Bill. In simple terms, it provides a critical safeguard for our most ecologically valuable places by ensuring that EDPs, tools designed to offset and manage environmental harm from development, cannot be applied to irreplaceable habitats or to features whose degradation would harm such habitats. It is not possible to offset an irreplaceable habitat; it is, by definition, irreplaceable.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 54, page 87, line 13, at end insert— “(fa) the Climate Change Committee, (fb) the Office for Environmental Protection,” This amendment would add the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection to the list of parties who must be consulted on a draft EDP by Natural England.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I speak in support of the amendments tabled by my colleague, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, and also in support of amendment 79, on social infrastructure. Amendment 79 is a probing amendment, emphasising the importance of social infrastructure such as parks, libraries, community hubs and sports facilities. These elements of the public realm are so important for community cohesion and strong communities. There are many communities that are doubly disadvantaged: they are economically disadvantaged and they lack the social infrastructure that is a key catalyst for development, social cohesion and wellbeing locally. We have a real opportunity in the Bill to specify the importance of social infrastructure—the elements of public space that enable people to come together to make connections and strengthen communities, and that act as the springboard for prosperity.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  North Herefordshire.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I take the Minister’s points, but if these things are included, why not just put them on the face of the Bill? However, I will not press the issue to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 54 Consultation on draft EDP

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 50, page 84, line 27, at end insert— “(2A) An environmental feature identified in an EDP must not be— (a) an irreplaceable habitat; (b) ecologically linked to an irreplaceable habitat to the extent that development-related harm to that feature or the surrounding site would negatively affect the irreplaceable habitat. (2B) For the purposes of this section, ‘irreplaceable habitat’ means— (a) a habitat identified as irreplaceable under The Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024, or (b) an ecologically valuable habitat that would be technically very difficult or impossible to restore, create or replace within a reasonable timescale.” This amendment would mean that an Environmental Delivery Plan cannot be created for irreplaceable habitats, and would maintain existing rules and processes for the protection of irreplaceable habitats, including under the National Planning Policy Framework.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister not recognise that the fact that we have such huge problems with air pollution means that existing regulation is not working well enough?

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 3, a crucial amendment relating to timing. The current wording in clause 52 opens the door to conservation measures in EDPs coming long after the environmental features that they relate to having been damaged. Such a delay could be fatal to some habitats and species that have already suffered decline, so the mitigation could come too late. That is what the amendment aims to address. The absence of direction on the timing of EDP measures has been highlighted by the Office for Environmental Protection as one of its key concerns about part 3. The OEP’s advice to the Secretary of State observed: “The bill is silent as to when conservation measures must be implemented and by when they must be effective. This gives rise to the possibility of significant impacts on the conservation status of protected species or sites arising before the successful implementation of conservation measures.” That is the exact concern at the heart of amendment 3. I want to illustrate the point with the example of the hazel dormouse. This rare, beautiful species has declined in number in England by 70%. Populations have become extinct in Hertfordshire, Staffordshire and Northumberland in the last few years. In places where they are clinging on, EDPs could be the final nail in the coffin. Hazel dormice are reliant on woodlands, travel corridors, established hedgerows and scrub. If an EDP permitted the destruction of those habitats on the basis of replacement habitats being provided some years down the road, it could be too late. It takes seven to eight years for hedgerows and scrub and significantly longer for woodland to become established, but a dormouse’s life span is three to five years, so there are several generations of dormice that could be affected by the destruction of habitat. Without their home, the populations would quickly die off, causing irreversible damage to the species before the replacement habitat came into effect. Amendment 3 would deliver on the OEP recommendation to rectify that part of clause 52 and prevent such harm before mitigation, which is not intentional, I hope, but could arise accidentally if we do not adopt amendment 3. It would require Natural England, when setting the content of an EDP, to set a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures, guided by the principle that gains for nature should come in advance of harm from development. When Natural England is of the opinion that harms to an environmental feature are irreversible, it would have to ensure through the timetable that a boost to conservation status had been achieved before harm from development occurs. I stress that the irreversible harm element would likely only apply in a small minority of cases when the most threatened habitats or species populations face possible destruction from harm coming before mitigation. In most cases, the amendment would simply mean that Natural England would be required to show careful consideration of how it would be ecologically best to sequence conservation measures when drawing up an EDP, prioritising up-front environmental gains. In sum, the amendment is a constructive effort to resolve a key threat to nature identified by the OEP itself. I very much hope the Minister will accept it.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  New section 12H(3) says that the authority “must consider notifying…the following”, so there is no specification that it must notify; it must only consider notifying. The person in the cupboard could consider notifying them and decide, “No, I’m not going to notify them.” The only hard requirement is that “the authority must…publish…a statement inviting representations”. As I have just outlined, that is not the same as consultation. I taught this subject at university: according to Arnstein’s ladder of participation, consultation is at a higher level than notification. Will the Minister take that away and consider improving the provisions for consultation?

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is widely recognised that the climate and nature crises are deeply interconnected. However, although the Planning and Infrastructure Bill rightly requires Natural England to consult the Environment Agency and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, it fails to require it to consult the Climate Change Committee or the Office for Environmental Protection. Furthermore, when developing an environmental delivery plan, although there is an obligation to have regard to the current environmental improvement plan and any strategies under the Environment Act 2021, there is no obligation to consider the Climate Change Act 2008 or the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan. In its current form, the Bill fails to provide the integrated approach needed when facing a dual crisis. That omission risks reinforcing our siloed approach, which creates implementation gaps, where some problems are inadequately tackled by both nature and climate plans, and solutions developed to tackle one crisis can inadvertently make the other worse. The Government pledged a mission-led approach to overcome departmental barriers when they were elected, and yet the ongoing disconnect between climate and nature policy show that they are unfortunately failing to deliver. As the Foreign Secretary acknowledged last year, there remains a tendency for climate and nature policy to end up siloed, and the Bill as currently drafted reflects that tendency. Internationally, the UK supported calls for greater synergy between climate and nature policy at recent conferences of the parties, but without translating that welcome international ambition into domestic action, we only deepen the gap between our words and actions. The Government claim that the Bill is a step towards a more strategic approach to nature restoration that will “accelerate infrastructure delivery” while boosting nature. But as the Government’s own impact assessment reveals, there is little evidence to suggest that nature obligations are a barrier to development, and the claim that this new approach will be “a win-win” for nature is, as we are seeing in this Committee, somewhat contested. Unfortunately, if the strategic approach addresses only one side of the issue—that is, without giving due recognition to the need to be fully integrated with our climate action—we will fail to achieve what we need to. Amendment 52 to clause 53, and indeed amendment 53 to clause 54, would ensure that Natural England’s environmental delivery plans are fully aligned with existing climate and environmental frameworks, helping to avoid duplication, conflicts and oversight. They would also give the OEP—the body established to hold the Government and public authorities to account—a formal advisory role in the EDP process. I believe that they would strengthen the Bill, so I warmly recommend them to the Minister.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. We will have to agree to somewhat disagree on this matter, but in the interests of time—and because I can count—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert— “(6A) A spatial development strategy must— (a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area; (b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and (c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.” This amendment would require a special 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.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to move amendment 1 on chalk streams, which was tabled in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). Clause 47 introduces spatial development strategies to provide a new strategic layer to the planning system. That creates a real opportunity to create new planning protections for strategic but threatened natural resources, such as chalk streams. We have talked about these matters in the Chamber throughout my time here, so I think we all know that the south and east of England are home to fresh waters that rise on chalk soils, whose filtration qualities result in crystal-clear, mineral-rich waters teeming with aquatic life. They are truly beautiful. A handful of chalk streams occur in northern France and Denmark, but the majority are found in England, so this globally rare ecosystem is largely restricted to our shores. We have a huge responsibly to protect it, and a huge opportunity with the Bill. Sadly, however, we are currently failing to look after this natural treasure adequately for the world. These rare habitats are threatened like never before due to development and other pressures. Some 37% of chalk water bodies do not meet the criteria for good ecological status, due in large part to over-abstraction of water to serve development in inappropriate locations. This spring is the driest since 1956, and there is a risk that some vulnerable chalk streams will dry up altogether, which would be terrible. Amendment 1 would equip the Bill to address those risks and reduce the impact of development on chalk streams. It would direct the Secretary of State to create new protections for chalk streams and require spatial development authorities covering areas with chalk streams to use those protections to protect and enhance them within the SDS. The affixing of chalk stream responsibility to spatial development strategies would allow the protections to be applied strategically and effectively across entire regions where chalk streams flow. Water bodies, rivers and streams do not respect our administrative boundaries, so we need cross-boundary co-operation to ensure effective protection in the whole catchment. That would also allow the protection requirements to be fairly balanced with development objectives, furthering the wins for both nature and development that Ministers say they are so keen to see from this Bill. Successive Governments have failed to bring forward the planning reforms needed to address the development pressures that are eroding some of England’s natural crown jewels, and chalk streams are absolutely in that category. There is significant cross-party support for this amendment and for action—I have heard many Members speak about this matter in the Chamber—so I hope the Minister listens, accepts the amendment and delivers a timely new protection for one of our most threatened habitats.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 52, in clause 53, page 86, line 21, after “strategies,” insert— “(ca) the current Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, (cb) any reports and strategies produced under the Climate Change Act 2008,” This amendment would require Natural England to consider the Government’s Carbon Budget Delivery Plan and any reports or strategies published under the Climate Change Act when preparing an EDP.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will not repeat the points I made in my previous speech, which were effectively about the same substance. However, it seems an oversight that the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection are not named in the long list of organisations to be consulted on an EDP. I gently ask the Minister to take that point away and to treat it as a constructive suggestion, to ensure that we have clarity and that the voices of those crucial bodies are included, alongside those of all the other organisations that are to be consulted on a draft EDP.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise, briefly, to support the substantive point about the necessity of public consultation on something as important as a spatial planning strategy. As new section 12H of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 is entitled “Consultation and representations”, it is disappointing that there is actually no provision for consultation. There is provision only for the consideration of notification, which is inadequate for strategies that will be as important as these. I urge the Minister to consider going away and aligning the text of his clause with the title of his clause.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister, but just observe that if we can simply trust Natural England to consult anybody that it thinks relevant, there is no need for any list in clause 54(1). We could just keep paragraph (h), which refers to “any other public authority Natural England considers should be consulted”. The fact that there is a long list of 10 people that it should consult indicates that the Government think it is important that certain parties be consulted. I suggest that the Climate Change Committee and the OEP ought to be in that list. If the Minister is not willing to put this in the Bill, I ask him to consider putting it in the regulations or guidance that he is indicating in paragraph (i). I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 125, in clause 54, page 87, line 19, at end insert— “(j) any impacted landowner, (k) sea fishing businesses, where the EDP covers an area which is adjacent to their fishing grounds, (l) the owners of fishing rights, where the EDP includes or otherwise affects rivers or lakes used for fishing.”— (Paul Holmes.) Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 47, page 66, line 18, at end insert— “(6A) Where a spatial development strategy includes a Smoke Control Area or an Air Quality Management Area, the strategy must— (a) identify measures to reduce air pollution resulting from the development and use of land in that area, and (b) outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in relation to the management of air quality.” This amendment would require spatial development strategies which cover Smoke Control Areas or Air Quality Management Areas to consider air pollution and air quality. This amendment would require that, where a spatial development strategy includes a smoke control area or an air quality management area, the strategy must identify specific measures to reduce air pollution from the development and use of land, and must outline the responsibilities of strategic planning authorities in managing air quality. Currently, over 10 million people in the UK live in smoke control areas: zones where restrictions are placed on burning certain fuels or using specific appliances to reduce particular emissions. Likewise, more than 400 air quality management areas have been declared by local authorities under the Environment Act 1995 in locations where air pollution exceeds national air quality objectives. These are places where we are really not doing well enough on air pollution. Despite the formal recognition of these zones, they are often not meaningfully integrated into spatial development strategies, so this legislation gives us an opportunity to ensure that new housing, transport and infrastructure projects, when approved, must fully account for their cumulative impacts on already poor air quality. Construction and land development are direct contributors to air pollution through increased traffic volume, emissions from building activity and the removal of green space that helps to filter pollutants. In many cases, strategic planning authorities are not required to take those factors into account when drafting or approving development strategies. The amendment would close that gap by ensuring that air quality is treated not as a secondary consideration, but a fundamental part of sustainable planning. Perhaps I should declare an interest as an asthmatic, like huge numbers of people in the UK. The amendment also strengthens the accountability of strategic planning authorities, by requiring them not just to assess air quality impacts, but to work out what they are going to do—to define their roles—in addressing them. That would help to prevent the recurring issue where the responsibility for mitigating air pollution falls between Departments or different levels of government, central and local. It would ensure that development strategies are consistent with the UK’s broader legal commitments to air quality, including the targets that we set under the Environment Act 2021 and the national air quality strategy. From a public health perspective, the case for the amendment is clear. Air pollution is linked to an estimated 43,000 premature deaths annually in the UK. That is a huge number and contributes to a range of serious health conditions, particularly among children, older adults and those living in deprived areas. The economic cost of air pollution, including its impact on the NHS, is estimated at a whopping £20 billion a year. Embedding air quality considerations directly into spatial planning is a proactive and cost-effective way to address the crisis before further harm is done to human health. I believe that the amendment provides a clear, proportionate mechanism for ensuring that planning strategies support our clean air objectives. I strongly urge the Minister to consider warmly the amendment.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has tabled amendments 95 and 97, but is that the sum total of the Minister’s response to the OEP’s advice? Those amendments do not, by any means, address the thrust and specifics of that advice. What further response does the Minister intend to make in response to and recognition of the OEP’s advice?

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have seen comments from a number of environmental NGOs that were upset with how their previous comments had been taken out of context and used to indicate support for the Bill in a part of it that they do not feel so strongly supportive of. I have also heard feedback from environmental and nature protection NGOs that are frustrated with the fact that there was not a huge amount of consultation, or the formality of consultation that there could have been. I genuinely do not want to get into a “He said, she said” debate or anything like that. I encourage the Minister gently to recognise the seriousness of the critique and the concerns that have been expressed. The Minister has said that the status quo is not working and that we need to change it. Amendment 3 proposes a further improvement; it is not a wholesale chucking out of absolutely everything in the Bill. A genuine attempt to strengthen this particular aspect of the Bill is being proposed in respect of the timing of measures under EDPs, recognising that given how nature works, it is important that the improvement comes before the destruction. That is all the amendment is about.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have been reading the clauses very carefully. As I read the Bill, it provides that a draft SDS can be produced without any public consultation whatsoever—in other words, a draft SDS can be produced by somebody in a cupboard with access to the internet. New section 12H, which deals with consultation and representations, provides an opportunity for consultation on the draft, preparatory to the examination and then the finalisation. The problem is that new section 12H does not provide for consultation; it provides only for the consideration of notifying various local bodies. According to the Bill, it provides that “the authority must also publish or make available a statement inviting representations to be made to the authority”. Without any clarity on what that involves, an authority can just put something on a website that says, “If you’re interested in this, send us an email,” and nobody in the local area would have a clue that it was happening. The point of consultation is that it is an active process of engagement with those who have a legitimate interest in the matter. I think the Bill’s drafting does not reflect that.

• 14 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  How can the Government have that confidence when the OEP says that they should not?