Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  And we think that is right on schedule 1 applications. They are a very different proposition from schedule 2 applications, which we think members should be able to take a view on through the gateway test.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Planning officers routinely make decisions without applications going to committee. We trust them to do so; they are bound by the requirements that I have just set out. The hon. Member touches on a point that I was going to come to. It is important to ensure that we have a highly skilled planning profession and the right training and support in place for officers. We are investing in good decision making by planning officers in councils across the country. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department has a planning capacity and capability programme that provides a broad range of support covering recruitment, skills, development, training and funding to ensure that local planning authorities have the capability and capacity that they need. Our approach to supporting planning recruitment and skills is deliberately demand-led, allowing local planning authorities to deploy support in line with their specific pressures. As he will know, councils have the flexibility to use support to recruit specialist skills or to upskill existing staff. To ensure that I respond to all questions, I will make two final points. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, asked about instances in which the local authority is the decision maker or a local authority member is involved. I addressed that in my opening remarks, but it is worth clarifying again. We recognise that, for applications involving a local authority or an officer or member of that authority, committee scrutiny is merited in some cases, in the interests of transparency. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they fall into schedule 1 or schedule 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North made a powerful speech in support of the regulations. However, he asked how we determined which types of application fall into schedule 1. On the specific question of minor residential development, we took that as the appropriate threshold because, unlike in policy, in legislation—the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015—there is a distinction between minor and major development. With “minor development” being under 10 units, we thought that that was the appropriate level to set when it comes to residential developments. Commercial and housing development also falls into schedule 2. Importantly, a key addition that we made to the regulations following consultation was the requirement for the regulations to be reviewed within two years of their coming into force. That will give us the opportunity to monitor their implementation and identify any issues or unintended consequences resulting from particular types of application placement. That review will take place by 31 October 2028. Notwithstanding the range of issues and considerations that we have discussed, let me draw the Committee back to what the regulations seek to achieve. They are about improving the quality and speed of decision making so that the housing and growth that local communities want—and desperately need in many cases—can be delivered more quickly. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe so, because local planning authority schemes must adhere to planning regulations and meet the gateway test—in the sense of what can pass a committee—and the statutory guidance to which they must have regard. In a sense, we want to ensure that applications passing through the gateway and considered by committees are larger, complex and more controversial cases, and that less significant applications are determined by planning officers. That leads me to the legal obligations on officers. In a sense, the question has been put to me, “Can we trust local planning officers to make these decisions?” I must make it clear that officers working for local authorities are bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. They must, by law, take all material considerations into account, including relevant parts of a local plan—that is why having an up-to-date local plan in place is so significant—and national planning policy. The law also requires their decisions to be rational. Planning officers’ actions must adhere to codes of conduct, be they those of the local planning authority or of the professional institutes to which they belong. Taken together, we think that these measures provide strong safeguards to underpin the integrity of decisions.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  That is a fair question. As I set out in my opening remarks, if such an application were to meet the conditions in schedule 2, it would go in front of the chief planning officer, in most instances, and the chair of the planning committee, and a gateway test would determine whether it meets the criteria that I have set out. If it does, the local authority can put the decision in front of elected members, as happens now with an officer recommendation, so we are not changing that. I have listed the types of application that fall under schedule 1: minor residential development under 10 units, minor commercial development and so on. There might be a principled difference of opinion here, which I respect, but we do think that expert planning officers should be able to take decisions on those matters. The hon. Member for Orpington challenged me on the impact of the fact that 96% are already not determined by committee. In a sense, he was saying, “What’s the point of these regulations, given that we have local schemes of delegation doing the job?” As highlighted in the impact assessment for these reforms to the Planning and Infrastructure Act, we expect these reforms to have a small but positive impact on the delivery of housing in this Parliament. We have never suggested that they are a silver bullet for all the issues that we face in the planning system. The Act’s impact assessment covered a number of options, including our lead option of delegating when applications are in line with local plans. We explored that issue, but the regulations take a more structured approach to delegating along the lines of application type, so we need to update the assessment to reflect that. We recognise that only approximately 4% of decisions are made by committees at present, but that percentage represents a substantial proportion of total units in the planning process because many major applications go to planning committee for consideration. Under the circumstances that we have outlined for the gateway test, they might not necessarily do so as they might not meet those criteria. Streamlining the planning process will make a meaningful contribution to the delivery of much-needed housing and sustainable communities.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. The regulations were laid before the House on 1 June and, following a minor correction, re-laid on 8 June. In considering this instrument today we are not debating the principle of modernising planning committees. The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses and approved by them. Before I turn to the detail of the regulations, it is important to set out the extensive consultation and engagement that we have undertaken on these measures. As Committee members may recall, the commitment to improve local planning decision making by modernising planning committees was made in the King’s Speech 2024. Following that announcement, we published a planning reform working paper on planning committees that set out a range of proposals, including three options in respect of a national scheme of delegation designed to bring greater standardisation over the operation of committees and give greater certainty to applicants. Taking into account the valuable feedback we received to that working paper, three measures were introduced to the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The first gives a new power to the Secretary of State to set out which planning functions should be delegated to planning officers for a decision, and which should instead go to a planning committee or sub-committee. The second gives a new power to the Secretary of State to control the size and composition of planning committees. The third imposes a new requirement for members of planning committees to be trained and certified in key elements of planning law and policy. During the course of the Act’s progress, we undertook a public consultation on detailed proposals in respect of the three measures. Our response to that consultation committed the Government to introduce, through regulations, a two-tier national scheme of delegation to set a maximum cap for planning committees of 13 members, and to undertake further stakeholder engagement with a view to designing a creditable and cost-effective system for training committee members. As required by the Act, a further statutory consultation on the draft regulations for the national scheme of delegation and cap on committee size and associated guidance was undertaken earlier this year. The Government response confirmed that some changes would be made to the regulations as a result of feedback received, including imposing a size threshold in relation to reserved matters applications, which would determine whether they are in schedule 1 or 2. The result is the draft regulations before us. It is the Government’s considered view that they are integral to driving up rates of house building, and that they will improve, not undermine, the vital role played by planning committees. As I was at pains to stress throughout the passage of the Act, the Government recognise the essential role that planning committees play in ensuring that decisions about what to build and where are shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. However, in providing essential local democratic oversight of planning decisions, we are determined to ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on larger and more complex applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. I reiterate that these regulations do not alter in any way existing requirements to consult on planning applications, the right of residents and elected councillors in any given local planning authority area to submit representations and make objections in respect of planning applications, or the fact that any such comments must be taken into consideration when determining applications, regardless of the decision maker. They are instead designed to ensure that planning committees function effectively, and that they are focused on the development proposals that matter most to an area, rather than spending time on minor or technical applications that can be efficiently determined by expert planning officers, bound by strict requirements in the way they make decisions on applications. The principle of schemes of delegation is, of course, uncontested. At present, every local planning authority has its own scheme of delegation to identify the circumstances in which planning decisions are taken by planning committees rather than delegated to officers. Most local planning authorities already delegate a significant proportion of applications to such officers, such that 96% of planning decisions in England are already not made by planning committees. The problem is that there is significant variation across the country, and this creates risk and uncertainty in the system. For those reasons, we are introducing the national scheme of delegation. It will provide greater consistency and certainty across England about who in a local planning authority will be responsible for making planning decisions. Let me briefly explain how the national scheme of delegation will work. It categorises planning applications into two types: those that must always be delegated to planning officers, as set out in schedule 1; and those that may, subject to a gateway test, be referred to a planning committee, as set out in schedule 2. The types of applications that must be determined by an officer include applications for minor residential development, that is schemes of fewer than 10 dwellings; minor commercial development; householder development; and reserved matters applications from proposals where the outline planning permission is for fewer than 500 dwellings. The types of application that fall into schedule 2 include larger applications for planning permission not set out in schedule 1, reserved matters applications where the outline permission is for more than 500 dwellings, and listed building consent applications. We anticipate that, in many circumstances, schedule 2 applications will continue to be routinely delegated to officers, as is already the case across the country. However, councils can decide to take them to committee if they feel it would be appropriate. To do so, the application must meet the requirements of the gateway test. It will be the responsibility of a nominated officer, usually the chief planner or equivalent, and a nominated member, usually the chair of the committee, to determine whether an application meets those criteria. The gateway test will operate as follows. Applications will be determined by a planning officer unless the nominated officer and member agree that it meets at least one of the following criteria: where the application raises an economic, social or environmental issue of significance for the local area; or where it raises a significant planning matter, having regard to the development plan and any other material considerations. We recognise that for applications involving a local authority itself, or an officer or member of that authority, there may sometimes be cases where, in the interests of transparency, committee scrutiny is merited. To allow for that, we have provided in the regulations that such applications, regardless of whether they would fall into schedules 1 or 2, can be referred to committee with the agreement of the nominated officer and nominated member, even if they do not meet the specific criteria. To support local planning authorities in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and to ensure a consistent approach, we have published statutory guidance that they must have regard to. We have also asked the planning advisory service to provide support and training to both the officers and the members of local planning authorities in implementing the new approach to the operation of the delegation of decision making. As I mentioned, we are also placing a cap on the number of members who can sit on a planning committee. That is intended to allow committees to have more focused and higher quality debates. The cap has been set at 13 members, to accommodate those local planning authorities that have members from multiple political parties to ensure appropriate representation. To conclude, planning is and will remain principally a local activity because decisions about what to build and where should be shaped by local communities and reflect the views of local residents. That is why the Government are determined to ensure that every area has an up-to-date local plan developed through resident engagement, and it is why we remain firmly of the view that planning committees have an integral role to play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. It is, however, vital that in exercising that democratic oversight, planning committees operate as effectively as possible, focusing on those applications that require member input and not revisiting the same decisions. As I made clear at the outset of my remarks, we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement on these measures. We published an initial working paper. We held two rounds of public consultation and various roundtables and events, including with local authority officers, chairs of planning committees, house builders and sector bodies. Some of those events were led by the planning advisory service on behalf of the Department. We have listened and given careful consideration to the wide range of views expressed by those who have an interest in the matter. Those views and existing best practice across the country have informed the regulations. I hope that hon. Members agree that the changes we seek to make are a reasonable and proportionate means of improving the quality and speed of decision making in local planning authorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I knew that this instrument would provoke strong feelings, and it has done so, but I very much welcome the scrutiny provided by hon. Members and the considered contributions they have made. The first thing to say is that a principled case has been advanced—as it was during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill—from members of the Committee who do not believe that a national scheme of delegation is warranted in any way. We have heard some of those arguments today, but, quite frankly, the time for those arguments has passed; the Act containing the enabling powers for these regulations passed both Houses after extensive scrutiny. We are talking about the form that the regulations take in implementing the national scheme of delegation, and we have undertaken extensive consultation and engagement to try to get the balance right in terms of the two-tier system we are introducing. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, put a number of questions to me. The first touched on the rationale for the regulations in a fundamental way. As I said, we recognise the important role that planning committees play in ensuring local democratic oversight, and they will continue, once the regulations have passed—if they pass—to play a crucial role in planning decision making in the future. Across the country, we have a plethora of local schemes of delegation with huge variation, and that postcode lottery of schemes of delegation creates uncertainty. It slows down the planning system in important respects, which is why these regulations are required. We have made a raft of changes through our reforms to the planning system and are introducing a new system to bring forward local plans quicker. The hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned the importance of local plans, and I absolutely agree with him. It is a travesty that we inherited a system with such low local plan coverage that was up to date. We have made concerted efforts, as he knows, to try and drive up coverage of local plans across the country, to introduce a more rules-based national planning policy framework and to resource planning authorities to ensure that they can do the job they need to. Planning committees will continue to play a vital role in exercising democratic oversight, but we have to ensure that they are operating as effectively as possible and are focused on larger, more complex applications where member input is required. The Government trust expert planning officers. The question for us is finding the right level of trust and empowerment to allow them to resolve the applications that we propose to put in schedule 1 of the regulations more quickly in the service of residents and businesses. Only 5% of minor residential development applications are determined by committee, but that 5% adds a lot of time to what are, when it comes to residential development for example, quite minor applications. Local input in planning decisions will continue to be incredibly important, including from elected representatives. We believe that the best way for councillors and communities to engage in development is through the local plan process; that is the point at which local councillors can ensure that the local policies that planning officers would have to follow in respect of schedule 1 applications are in place. The changes we are making through the national scheme of delegation will support that plan-led system. They will ensure that planning committees operate as effectively as possible by focusing, as I have said, on those major decisions. We recognise that some planning applications are potentially complex or controversial. That is why we have created a framework where schedule 2 applications can go to committee for consultation when additional scrutiny is necessary. For example, schedule 2 includes listed building consent applications. In the vast majority of cases, we would expect those to be delegated to officers without any consequence, but there will always be a few cases that raise more significant issues and where members will want to take a view. Where a controversial development is proposed that has not been planned for, councillors can still play a key role in representing the voices of their constituents. I absolutely refute the Liberal Democrat spokesman’s argument that the regulations completely remove the role of councillors or cause the death of local democracy, as he sought to portray it. Local people will still be able to make representations on individual developments through the application process. Local councillors will be able to submit their views or objections, and, as the hon. Member knows because of his experience in the planning service, those concerns must be taken into account when, in the case of schedule 1 applications, the officer is reaching a decision. We are not changing anything in that respect.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made. The impact assessment for the Act was published on the basis of a particular scenario, which we have modified. We need to update the impact assessment and we will do so in due course so that he has a better sense of the impact. The impact is tangible and real, in terms of what can go through schedule 2. We also anticipate that it will mean less time and resource spent on preparing for committee meetings for smaller applications in schedule 1, so it will speed up the decision-making process more broadly and free up important officer time to focus on larger applications that have a real impact on housing delivery. Several hon. Members mentioned councillors’ ability to call in applications, which we are removing. The regulations do not require local authorities to put every schedule 2 application through the gateway test. It will be for individual local planning authorities to put in place their own arrangements for how the consideration of cases for referral to committee will operate in practice. In other words, it will be open to individual LPAs to triage their schedule 2 applications in ways that are appropriate for them so that only certain schedule 2 applications are considered by the nominated officer and member. Under those arrangements, it would be open to a local planning authority to include a mechanism for councillors to ask for applications that fall under schedule 2 to be considered under the gateway test, and if they meet that test they can be looked at by committee.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I do not have that information to hand. I am more than happy to follow up in correspondence with my hon. Friend, as I said. I will bring that data, and any further data we have available, to any meeting that we might have on this subject.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way in a second, but let me briefly mention resources, which are really important. It is vital that councils have the capacity to take action where needed. That is why we have provided £18.2 million in 2025-26 and £41.1 million for 2026-27 to support the new enforcement responsibilities that local authorities have taken on under the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We plan to establish a more sustainable funding system for enforcement in the private rented sector over the longer term based on future database revenue fees, but, again, I want to understand the challenges that particular local authorities are facing in that respect.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to sit down and run my hon. Friend through the instrument in lots more detail than I can give from the Dispatch Box, but it is the case that the national scheme of delegation does not specify HMOs in particular. However, development not covered by the HMO permitted development right will fall into schedule 1 of the regulations relating to the national scheme of delegation, where those decisions will be delegated to expert planning officers. As I said, we want to ensure with these reforms that planning committees, and their valuable time, are focused on the most controversial applications where their democratic oversight is best placed.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  The register was successful in its aims in terms of providing operators with a chance to submit uncontracted, unsold section 106 units. Roughly over 4,000 units were put into that clearing service, which closed on 1 June. Through the policy intervention we made, we encouraged local authorities to consider how best to get those units moved, cascading to market sale in instances where they felt that they needed to do that. But that small number, which is far below the estimates we heard from some quarters, is a sign that some of the problem is working itself out. We are providing registered providers of affordable housing with greater financial capacity through our rent settlement, rent convergence and all the interventions we are making. Those measures are allowing them to buy more section 106 units and get those stalled schemes moving. To conclude, local planning authorities already have powers to restrict the proliferation of HMOs. They already benefit from or can deploy licensing powers to ensure that HMOs are safe and well managed, and they do have, we believe, robust powers to ensure that landlords of HMOs comply with all relevant regulations. As I said, I am very interested to hear from hon. Members about particular cases where they think that their local authority is not able to enforce the regulations that already exist, and of instances of actors circumventing that system—I was very interested in the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford gave. Those are the types of things we want to work through. If it transpires through those examples that the regulations are lacking in some way, we will take that into account. I have made it very clear that we keep the regulation of HMOs under review to ensure that the system works in the way that we want to see it work. Question put and agreed to .

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  Councils have that power. I do not know off the top of my head whether the hon. Gentleman’s local authority has consulted on and put in place an article 4 direction, but if it has not, I strongly encourage him to make that case so that his local authority makes full use of its powers. This is the crucial point. Are the powers in place inadequate—in which case let us have that conversation among hon. Members—or are individual local planning authorities unable or unwilling, for whatever reason, to exercise properly the powers that they have? If that is the case, we need to understand what more they need in the way of resources, support and guidance to be able to do so. Let me briefly touch on social and affordable housing. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields rightly said, the ultimate solution to ensure that we have enough housing supply in any given area is to build enough homes of all tenures, including social and affordable homes. She has welcomed our new £39 billion 10-year social and affordable homes programme, the largest long-term investment in social and affordable housing in recent memory. Our ambition is to deliver around 300,000 homes over the lifetime of that programme. As she knows, our target is for at least 60% of the homes delivered to be for social rent, to provide the genuinely affordable homes that families need in her area and others. We are also taking decisive action to reinvigorate council house building, including a new 10-year housing rent policy, and we have reinstated rent convergence. That will strengthen councils’ capacity and confidence for building new homes. We are taking action to reform the right to buy, including returning right-to-buy cash discounts to between £16,000 and £38,000. Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields knows, we will go further in implementing the next phase of reforms through our Social Housing Bill, which is making good progress in the other place. Its measures include allowing councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales, with increased flexibilities in how they can be spent. We are already seeing many the fruits of many of the reforms that we have put in place. Data released just this morning by Homes England and the Greater London Authority in respect of affordable housing starts and completions shows that starts are up 26% and completions are up 8% on 2024-25, and we are delivering the highest number of social rent starts since 2010-11. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned the national scheme of delegation. We are modernising how planning committees function, and we have been very clear about the case for doing so. We want to ensure that in exercising their democratic oversight, planning committees are focused on the applications that require member input, not on revisiting applications and decisions that have already been taken. We published a working paper on this in December 2024, and we carried out extensive engagement following that. We formally consulted twice on the reforms, once in May 2025, on the principle of a two-tier system with some decisions delegated to planning officers, and once in March 2026, on the draft regulations and guidance. We are to debate those guidelines next week. I will gently push back on my hon. Friend’s contention that local voices and objections are cut out. Nothing in those regulations will stop local residents objecting to applications or registering their discontent, but we do think that on a certain set of applications, it is right that expert planning officers make the decisions. I also just make the point that schemes of delegation are in place across most local authorities in the country. The problem is that there is huge variation, which is creating issues in the planning system. We want to streamline that with a simple set of rules across the country and a national scheme.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said, I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to hear their suggestions on where the regulations need to be strengthened. As a Department, our experience has been that, in some areas of the country, the powers are being properly enforced and the regulations are working. I want to understand more, if she is able to provide the evidence.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) on securing this important debate, and I thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for their contributions. I fully appreciate the concerns my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields raises about houses in multiple occupation, and in particular about their excessive concentration in two parts of her constituency, and the many problems that flow from that, which she described so vividly. HMOs can play an important role in the housing market, providing relatively low-cost accommodation for rent, as my hon. Friend acknowledged. However, it is right that local planning authorities can act, where appropriate, to minimise any negative impacts that such houses may have on local communities. My hon. Friend made a number of points about the interaction between HMOs and the planning system. As she rightly said, larger HMOs always require an application to the local planning authority for planning permission. However, nationally permitted development rights allow for existing homes to change use and become a small HMO for up to six people without the need for a planning application. Such small HMOs are also able to change back to standard family homes under similar rights. We recognise that the free operation of these nationally permitted development rights is not always suitable for all areas, which is precisely why local planning authorities can remove permitted development rights in a specific area by introducing an article 4 direction, following consultation with the affected local community. As my hon. Friend made clear, South Tyneside council has introduced a borough-wide article 4 direction, which means that all new HMOs in its area will need a planning application, regardless of their size. She has previously drawn attention to the impact of the growth of HMOs in her constituency, and will therefore welcome that change; I know the role that she played in pressing her local authority to make it. All planning permission applications are considered by the local planning authority in question in line with the development plan for the area, and in consultation with the local community. It is therefore key that local planning authorities have relevant and up-to-date policies in place. As my hon. Friend will be aware, South Tyneside council last adopted a local plan back in 2007, which means that the policies in the plan are significantly out of date. It is one of the oldest plans submitted in the legacy planning system. Following the council’s repeated failure to agree to submit its new plan for examination by an independent inspector, I intervened to ensure that the plan progressed to examination. I am pleased to report that the examination hearings have been completed, and we await the inspector’s final report. Following receipt of the inspector’s report, and in line with my intervention direction, the council will need to consider adoption of the plan. Adopting the plan will ensure that the council has up-to-date planning policies in place for South Tyneside, which is hugely important. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government recently consulted on a new national planning policy framework. The consultation included proposals for a more flexible policy on the use of article 4 directions, so that local planning authorities can remove nationally permitted development rights where that is necessary to safeguard the amenity or wellbeing of an area—where, for instance, there is an over-concentration of small HMOs. We are analysing the feedback received on that consultation, and will publish our response in due course. It is essential that HMOs are safe and well managed, which is why all HMOs are subject to management regulations. These regulations place duties on managers of HMOs to take safety measures, supply and maintain gas and electricity, and maintain common parts, fixtures and fittings. In addition, all local planning authorities must license HMOs with five or more people from two or more households who share facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom. Local authorities also have the power to require HMOs to be licensed where there are three or more people from two or more households sharing facilities. This means in practice that most HMOs can be licensed, where necessary. Local authorities can impose licence conditions to ensure that landlords effectively manage HMOs, and also have the power to inspect properties without notice, where they believe an offence has been committed under HMO legislation. Furthermore, the licence holder must undergo a fit and proper person test to assure a local authority that they can manage the property responsibly, safely and lawfully. I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about the operation of that test and its potential shortcomings, and I am more than happy to sit down with her and work through some of the examples she provided, so that we can learn more about its operation. If a local authority finds that the licence holder is no longer fit and proper—for instance, where they have committed a serious or repeated breach of licence conditions—it can revoke their licence. Local authorities have additional robust powers to tackle landlords who breach HMO regulations. That includes civil penalties of up to £40,000, rent repayment orders.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  Let me just give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields before I come to the hon. Gentleman.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Forest City: West Suffolk · Hansard source

  More

  Excellent. I am very glad to hear it. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this debate. I assure him that I have heard loud and clear his concerns about the high-level Forest City 1 proposals, and that I will reflect carefully on them. I also thank the other hon. Members who have made contributions to the debate. Setting aside the detailed criticism made of the proposals in question, the core argument the hon. Gentleman has advanced is that the Government have to date refused to “say no” to it, which I think were his words. I want to respond to this charge head-on at the outset, because as he knows full well, it is not the role of the Government to opine on every development proposal that materialises across the country. For good or ill, depending on one’s viewpoint, we have a discretionary planning system in which schemes of various sizes are judged on their site-specific merits by individual local planning authorities. The Secretary of State has powers to call in or recover planning applications where they involve matters of more than local importance, and they are exercised where necessary. The Department can also take forward specific initiatives and programmes involving the delivery of large-scale new communities. The recent consultation and decision to establish a Greater Cambridge development corporation and the ongoing work taking place to progress a new towns programme are two good examples, but in each instance the Government clearly set out the parameters of their support and consult where appropriate. What we do not do—indeed, we are obliged not to do it, given the quasi-judicial role of Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers in the planning system—is to publicly pass judgment on every unsolicited proposal that the Department receives. The hon. Gentleman looks somewhat confused by that notion, but that is how the planning system operates. The hon. Gentleman kindly provided me with advance notice of the questions he asked, so in response to each of them, let me give him as much clarity as I can. He asked whether the Government recognised that the Forest City promoters do not seek to go through “the appropriate local consultations and approvals”, and plan to rely instead on the legal, financial and political support of central Government. In response, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, while the size and nature of the proposed development would suggest as much, it is not entirely clear from the high-level material published by the promoters. Their website states, for example, that subsidy is not sought. A clear preference is expressed, however, for a development corporation as the delivery model, but it is not made explicit whether they are seeking Government backing for a centrally-led urban development corporation or are interested in a future mayoral or locally-led approach. In short, we simply do not have enough detail about this proposal to be able to say with any certainty precisely how its promoters believe it should be delivered. When it comes to the east of England, however, the Government’s focus is firmly on the establishment of the Greater Cambridge development corporation and using it to deliver nationally significant growth in Cambridge and its surrounding areas, in partnership with local leaders and communities. The hon. Gentleman pressed me on whether the Government will take this opportunity to rule out Forest City for good. For the reasons I have just set out, it is not for the Government to rule in or out any proposed scheme in general terms. He is aware that when the promoters of Forest City 1 applied to be part of the new towns programme, officials reviewed the application and concluded that it did not meet the programme’s objectives, specifically the deliverability objective. However, as per the remarks made by Baroness Taylor in the other place on 10 June, which he cited, it is open to the promoters of the scheme to engage with the relevant local planning authorities and communities about their proposals.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Forest City: West Suffolk · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, which pre-empts the next of his questions that I was going to come on to. He asked me specifically to rule out the establishment of a development corporation and the use of compulsory purchase powers for the construction of Forest City. I believe I have already confirmed to him, in answer to a written answer on 9 February, that the Government have no current plans to consult on the establishment of a centrally-led urban development corporation to deliver the Forest City 1 proposals. I do not think we can be clearer than that. The Government are not exploring creating a development corporation to take forward this speculative proposal. The hon. Gentleman invited me to provide an assessment of the financial modelling and subsidy gap in respect of the Forest City 1 proposal. It would not be appropriate for me to do so, even if the evidence base on which to make a rigorous assessment existed, which to the best of my knowledge it does not given that a business case has not yet even been put together by the promoters. Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me to publish details of all meetings and conversations held between Ministers, officials and advisers and the promoters of the scheme. I can confirm that neither I nor the Secretary of State have met the promoters. I have met some of the board members in the past, but not in relation to the Forest City 1 proposals. The promoters met my officials earlier this year and proposals were reviewed by officials when the promoters formally applied to be part of the new towns programme. As we have discussed, special advisers in our Department have had a single meeting with the promoters with the aim of learning more about the proposals. As he will know, details of meetings that special advisers have with external organisations are published on gov.uk, in line with requirements set out in the relevant guidance. To conclude, I appreciate fully the hon. Gentleman’s desire to have the Government express an opinion on the high-level scheme proposed, but I am afraid there is not much more to add to what I have set out already. As I have made clear, when it comes to the east of England, the Government’s focus is firmly on delivering high-quality, sustainable growth for Cambridge and its environs. We announced the establishment of the greater Cambridge development corporation on 2 June, and the required statutory instrument was laid two days later. Subject to forthcoming parliamentary scrutiny and approval, the development corporation will be established as an entity. A powers and functions statutory instrument will be laid later in the year, which will grant the development corporation both plan making and development management powers. The development corporation will be expected to work closely with neighbouring local planning authorities, including West Suffolk, engaging collaboratively to ensure that growth delivers positive outcomes across the wider area. On that note, I welcome the support he has expressed for the Government’s focus on Cambridge. Question put and agreed to.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Forest City: West Suffolk · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, please accept my sincere apologies for being slightly late to the Chamber.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank both the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, for those questions. I will seek to answer them each in turn, beginning with giving the Committee a sense of when things will change for landlords and for tenants. I made it clear that the draft regulations set out the framework for the redress scheme to come; they do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme. Much of the detail will follow in regulations. The draft regulations do not themselves create an immediate live complaints route for private tenants and they do not yet require private landlords to join a scheme. As I said, further regulations will be needed before membership becomes mandatory, once the service is ready to go live. The shadow Minister asked about fees. As we debated at length in the Bill Committee, landlords will be required to pay for the scheme. That is in line with established practice across the sector. The draft regulations require a scheme to include provision for fees, but they do not themselves set fee amounts. The intention is that the scheme document will outline the approach to setting and calculating membership, while details of the fees will be published elsewhere. That will allow administration and membership fees to be managed proportionately, without requiring the scheme to be amended whenever fee levels change. The Secretary of State, however—this is the important point in response to the shadow Minister’s question—will retain oversight of fees, including any increases, to ensure that they remain proportionate and represent value for money. Again, to respond to the point that the draft regulations do not set out the actual scheme, broadly, the PRS landlord ombudsman will consider complaints from tenants about actions, inactions or behaviours by their landlord that have caused harm or inconvenience. Those may include, for example, complaints relating to property standards and repairs, the landlord’s handling of requests or inappropriate behaviour by a landlord. We have deliberately not set out an exhaustive list on the face of this instrument, however, because the ombudsman will need discretion to consider the facts of individual cases and to respond to a change in the rental market. Again, as the designated scheme comes forward, we will see more detail and more examples of how that will work. To answer the shadow Minister’s question about fees and compensation, hon. Members will have noted that the draft instrument sets a compensation cap of £25,000 to align with the established cap for mandatory property agent redress. That helps, we think, to support consistency across the housing redress landscape, but the Government will of course keep the operation of the scheme, including the cap, under review as part of our wider governance monitoring and evaluation arrangements, with an initial review required within five years of the scheme being approved or designated. The shadow Minister touched on local authorities. It is important to be clear that the ombudsman is intended to provide a quicker, cheaper and less adversarial route to redress, where that is appropriate; it is not intended to replace either the courts or local authority enforcement. We have debated local authority enforcement at length on many occasions. He knows what we are doing about new burdens funding coming forward. Also, there is the ability for local authorities to levy fines and to use the proceeds of those fines to fund their enforcement work—we have recently switched those powers on, perhaps even today, although the exact date escapes me. Local authorities will continue to enforce regulatory requirements, with the ombudsman focusing on investigating complaints and, where appropriate, awarding redress to put things right. I touched on the point about landlords, which the Liberal Democrat spokesman asked me about. The draft regulations themselves do not mandate membership. A separate set of regulations will be needed to specify when landlords must be members of the scheme. We will have a chance to debate what kind of landlords are covered at that point, and I expect he will have a series of questions in that regard at that stage. We will, however, ensure—I think this is important—that landlords have clear guidance and sufficient notice before any membership requirement takes effect. I think I have answered all the questions. To conclude, while the draft instrument creates a legal framework for future private landlord redress schemes, it does not yet require landlords to join a scheme or create a live complaints route. It is, however, a critical step in delivering the private rented sector landlord ombudsman and our wider reforms to empower tenants. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Private Landlord Redress Schemes (Approval and Designation) Regulations 2026. It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker—it is my first time doing so, which makes it all the more special. In our manifesto, we promised to overhaul the regulation of an insecure and unjust private rented sector. Our transformative Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which received Royal Assent on 27 October last year, delivered on that commitment. In the implementation road map, published on 13 November 2025, the Government set out our intention to switch on the provisions of the Act in three distinct phases. As the first phase, on 1 May 2026, we commenced the new tenancy regime. As a result, section 21 no-fault evictions were finally abolished, all fixed-term tenancies transitioned to periodic tenancies; rent increases were limited to once a year, with new rights to challenge unreasonable rent hikes; rental bidding wars were banned; demands for large amounts of rent in advance were prohibited; discrimination against renters who have children or receive benefits was banned, and the right to request permission for a pet was introduced. In the second phase of our reforms, we will introduce our innovative database of private rented sector properties and establish a landlord ombudsman for the PRS to improve dispute resolution between tenants and landlords and avoid costly court proceedings. These regulations concern the latter measure, but do not themselves approve or designate a specific scheme. As hon. Members may be aware, the 2025 Act provides for the establishment of one or more landlord redress schemes for the private rented sector. These regulations preserve that flexibility, in case it is needed; however, the Government do not intend to create multiple schemes at launch. Our immediate intention is to establish a single designated scheme. Once further regulations are made and that single designated scheme is operational, residential private landlords will be required to join it, giving prospective, current and former tenants a route to fair, impartial and binding resolution where they have a legitimate complaint against their landlord. That will close an important gap in the current PRS regulatory landscape, where agent redress is already mandatory, but there is no equivalent mandatory route where responsibility lies with the landlord. The regulations are therefore the next legislative step towards establishing mandatory landlord redress for the private rented sector. However, as I mentioned, they do not approve or designate the scheme. This is an enabling instrument that must be put in place before a scheme can later be approved or designated. In the interest of providing clarity to the Committee on precisely what the instrument does and does not do, let me set out further detail. In essence, the regulations set the detailed framework for how a private landlord redress scheme may be approved or designated. In practice, the regulations will mean that any future scheme must be shown to have robust arrangements around independent decision making, fair complaints handling, binding redress, proportionate enforcement, fair and transparent fees, co-operation and information sharing with other bodies, public reporting and regular reviews, continuity if a scheme closes and access for users who need to engage by post or telephone. To be clear, an approved scheme would be designated and administered by an independent body and approved by the Secretary of State for the purposes of mandatory landlord redress. A designated scheme would be administered by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, who would designate it a mandatory landlord redress scheme. The regulations also set out how a scheme may be amended, so that it can respond to changes in the sector over time—including, but not confined to, changes in landlord and tenant behaviour, operational learning and the needs of the people who use the scheme. The Government’s view is that the framework should be robust, but not so rigid that it prevents a scheme from remaining effective and fit for purpose over time. The regulations also protect continuity of redress if a scheme closes, or if its approval is withdrawn or its designation revoked. That means that there must be arrangements to support an orderly transition, including the transfer of relevant information and records where necessary, so that tenants and landlords are not left without clarity or continuity if a scheme stops operating. I once again stress that the regulations do not approve or designate a redress scheme; that decision will come later. Their purpose is to establish the statutory conditions that any future scheme must meet, so that it can proceed only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it meets the required standard. That provides clarity for landlords on what will be expected of them, and for tenants on how complaints can be escalated once the scheme is in place. The regulations do not require landlords to join a scheme immediately. Next steps will involve preparing and designating a scheme, and subsequently bringing forward separate regulations, specifying which landlords must join and when that requirement will take effect, once the service is ready. It is essential that we establish this framework now because, without it, a scheme cannot be approved or designated and we cannot proceed to the next stage of implementation. However, doing so will also provide clarity, certainty and confidence to the sector. Subject to parliamentary approval of this instrument, our focus will turn to the scheme itself, ensuring that it is designed to meet the rigorous conditions set out in these regulations and that the Secretary of State can be satisfied that it is ready for designation. The Government’s intention, as I confirmed during the passage of the Bill, is for the Housing Ombudsman Service, which already administers social landlord redress, to operate the private landlord redress scheme too. The Housing Ombudsman will need enough time to develop the service ahead of launch, and we will ensure that we give landlords sufficient notice and clear guidance before any future requirement to join the scheme takes effect, including what will be expected of them in order to comply with the scheme. To conclude, these regulations put in place the minimum standards and safeguards that the private landlord redress scheme must meet. They are a necessary enabling step towards delivering a fair, impartial and binding redress scheme for private tenants, and a clear route to resolution when things go wrong. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  If the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention is about the actual regulations that we are debating, I will give way.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take a sideline into a philosophical discourse on the meaning of a strategy or of a report that I do not think he named and I do not think pertains to my Department. We are introducing a system of strategic planning, on which I think there is widespread consensus across the House. The removal of any effective mechanism for cross-boundary co-operation has caused a variety of issues. The duty to co-operate does not work effectively and we have to put it back in place. The draft regulations allow us to do that. On that basis, we will have a series of SDSs that provide a high-level housing growth and infrastructure framework.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  We have, to the extent that marine plans impact on spatial development strategies; I will outline the relationship when I respond to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. To be clear, the regulation power that we are talking about is a simple notification requirement on SDSs to ensure joined-up plan making. The Crown Estate is involved with marine plans, obviously, and I will set out how many there are across the country and how that relates, but this is a simple change in scope. I touched on brownfield land. I want to make clear where the democratic input comes from and who has to produce spatial development strategies: combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; upper-tier county councils; and unitary authorities. All will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Those authorities, as I said, are known as strategic planning authorities. The Government, however, will be able to group any of those authorities together to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board. In those areas where, for example, a mayor is not in place and there is not an obvious geography to take forward an SDS, a combination of authorities will be put together to come up with an SDS through a strategic planning board. Each authority will have a voice on the planning board. I should touch on the geography of an SDS. As hon. Members will know, in February and March the Government undertook a national consultation seeking views on proposed geographies for which spatial development strategies should be produced. That included proposals about which authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. We intend to publish a response to that consultation in the summer. Regulations will be needed to establish each strategic planning board. Before the regulations are laid, the affected authorities must be formally consulted. We intend to begin laying regulations to establish those boards after the summer recess, as I said; at that point, we will confirm the geographies. Local people will have a chance to input into the strategies, whether they come through the individual authorities involved or the mayoral link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes knows, marine planning is the process for managing the use of marine resources in a sustainable and co-ordinated manner. It ensures that the right activities happen in the right place, at the right time and in the right way. To encourage sustainable development, marine plans guide those who use and regulate the marine area, while considering the environment, economy and society. Marine plans operate alongside land-use planning systems to ensure a holistic approach to managing the coastal and marine environments. The six marine plans in England cover 11 marine plan areas. I come back to the specific change we are making through this amendment: it is just a notification—no veto is involved on the part of the strategic planning authority. It is being made so that we can ensure that, in areas where a marine plan abuts a spatial development strategy area, there is co-ordination and that the marine plan can be taken account of in decision making by the strategic planning authority producing the SDS. I consider these to be simple, straightforward, minor and consequential amendments. We will have a chance to debate more fully the more substantive amendments that come when we establish the new strategic plan-making system.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  If the right hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about the whole of Government report that he cites—I do not think that he has mentioned the title—I will happily consider some of the lessons learned from it and how they might apply to my Department. On that basis, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.