Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  I understand why the shadow Minister has sought to press me on this point, as I hope I have conveyed on previous clauses where we have touched upon compulsory purchase. We expect Natural England to use compulsory purchase orders as a last resort, and subject to appropriate scrutiny and oversight. It will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. I hope I can reassure him up front that Secretary of State oversight of the CPO process, as it applies through the nature restoration fund, is the same as in the existing process. Schedule 5 makes it very clear that the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 applies. More generally, clause 72 provides Natural England with powers to compulsorily purchase land. As we have set out throughout this sitting, to be successful in delivering a win-win for nature and the economy, it is vital that Natural England has the necessary powers to secure and implement the conservation measures needed to protect the environment and enable Britain to get building. Although it is necessary to equip Natural England with those powers to ensure conservation measures can be delivered, they can be used only if the land is required for the purposes connected with a conservation measure set out in an environmental delivery plan, where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed, and where there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers. As a further safeguard, the use of those powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State. Equipping Natural England with compulsory purchase powers is not unusual or novel. I sought to address that point on Second Reading. Many public bodies with statutory powers have compulsory purchase powers, and Natural England can already make compulsory purchase orders in some circumstances. Clause 72 is supported by schedule 5, which applies the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 and makes necessary modifications to compulsory purchase compensation legislation to accommodate these changes. Government new clauses 112 to 118 support this approach to compulsory purchase by making a number of technical amendments to ensure the operability of the new powers. That includes protections in respect of the use of CPO powers where the use of them may affect those carrying out statutory functions. Finally, the package of amendments removes certain terms that are a hangover from outdated regulations and makes adjustments to the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 to allow for powers of entry where notice has been given. As the Committee has already heard, the Government have taken a cautious approach to extending compulsory purchase powers but are clear that they need to be available in the context of the nature restoration fund to ensure that there is sufficient certainty that, where necessary and appropriate, compulsory purchase can be used to ensure conservation measures are delivered. I turn now to amendment 150, tabled by the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), which would restrict Natural England from utilising compulsory purchase powers for land that forms part of a dwelling or private garden. If I heard the shadow Minister correctly, it is a probing amendment, but I am more than happy to provide him with some further detail on the Government’s position. We agree that it will be crucial for the use of compulsory purchase powers to be appropriately constrained. That is why we have made sure that the current clauses provide that these powers can be used only where attempts to acquire land by negotiation have failed and there is a compelling case in the public interest for use of the compulsory purchase powers. That is supported by the further safeguard that the use of the powers will need to be authorised by the Secretary of State, which will include considering whether the public interest benefits of the acquisition justify interfering with the private rights of those affected. It is highly improbable that conservation measures in private gardens could form an ecologically essential component of an environmental delivery plan. I do not say it would be impossible, but it is highly improbable. Any restriction, however, of the use of the power where land contains an occupied dwelling or forms part of a private garden would be an unusual restriction on CPO powers, and would introduce unnecessary risks of complexity and delay when they are exercised. Any private dwellings will already benefit from additional protections, as I am sure the shadow Minister will know, under article 8 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason, and the existing safeguards within the Bill itself, I hope that the shadow Minister will withdraw the right hon. Lady’s amendment. Finally, I turn to new clause 107, which would provide for circumstances where Natural England must return land that has been compulsorily purchased. In providing Natural England with new powers to acquire land through compulsory purchase, the Government have been at pains to ensure that the powers operate with effective safeguards, as I have said, and are in line with the wider approach to compulsory purchase. As raised elsewhere in the debate, we are clear about the need to ensure that Natural England can, where appropriate, use such powers to secure land to deliver conservation measures. The new clause would undermine the efficacy of the proposed targeted powers by requiring land to be returned, at a loss to the taxpayer, where Natural England had to spend more money on conservation measures than the original contract price offered to the landowner. That would leave a hole not only in the public purse but in the environmental delivery plan in question, which would need to secure additional land to implement additional conservation measures that would have been secured on land now returned to the original owner. We share the desire of the shadow Minister to see the effective use of the powers—that is why the safeguards are in place—but I hope that, with that explanation, he will withdraw the amendment.

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

  More

  The Government have been consistently clear—from when we published the Bill and beforehand, in consulting on the general approach—that the nature restoration fund is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharged, but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. Clause 55 sets out the process for the Secretary of State when making an environmental delivery plan. The process begins when Natural England sends a draft copy to the Secretary of State along with copies of all consultation responses and Natural England’s response to the consultation. The clause requires that the Secretary of State may only approve an environmental delivery plan once satisfied that it passes the overall improvement test. The test requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. That test reflects the shift to a strategic approach, which, when considered alongside the wider package of safeguards, ensures that environmental delivery plans will deliver the better outcomes outlined in the plan itself. Environmental delivery plans will be evidence-based documents that will be subject to public consultation before the Secretary of State makes the decision to approve the plan. The Secretary of State can request further information from Natural England if needed. The environmental delivery plan will also set out how the conservation measures will contribute to the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. The test is therefore not a limit on the ambition of environmental delivery plans, but a safeguard that the conservation measures are sufficient to deliver the desired outcomes. If the overall improvement test is met, the Secretary of State may make the environmental delivery plan. It is anticipated that the Secretary of State considers wider factors, such as whether the conservation measures that will be maintained beyond the environmental delivery plan end date are properly funded for that duration. Once an environmental delivery plan is approved, Natural England will be able to proceed with delivering the conservation measures identified and take payments from developers that wish to use the environmental delivery plan to discharge relevant environmental obligations. In considering the overall improvement test, the Government have tabled Government amendment 97, which clarifies that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the overall improvement test is passed by the time of the end date of the environmental delivery plan. That will ensure that environmental delivery plans are focused on timely delivery of conservation measures and that the Secretary of State can approve an environmental delivery plan only when these measures and the environmental benefit will be secured by the end of the EDP. The amendment is supplemented by Government amendment 98, which clarifies that the negative effect that the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan. This clause also contains other matters governing the approach that the Secretary of State must take when deciding whether to make an environmental delivery plan, including the ability to request further information from Natural England. There will be times when the Secretary of State decides that an environmental delivery plan cannot be approved, so the clause ensures transparency if the Secretary of State decides not to approve an EDP. In concluding my comments on the purpose and effect of this clause, I want to be clear to the Committee that the Government recognise the importance of confidence in the outcomes that the nature restoration fund is designed to deliver. We have designed that model to provide for positive outcomes in all instances; that is the test that an EDP must meet. I recognise, however, that that confidence is an area for concern; we have heard from a number of hon. Members on this Committee and other stakeholders in that respect. It is vital that people have confidence. Although I am clear that that is what the legislation is designed to do, as I have made clear I am also listening to views on how we make sure that the approach is as effective as possible. We will be giving further thought to whether we should do more to underpin people’s confidence in that area. I turn to clause 56. When an environmental delivery plan is made, the clause sets a clear 28-day deadline within which it must be published; it will include the date of implementation. Prompt publication is important not only for transparency but because an environmental delivery plan cannot come into effect until it has been published. With that explanation, I commend the clauses and Government amendments to the Committee. I turn to amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. [ Interruption. ] I expect that she will speak to it after the Divisions in the House. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Gen Kitchen.)

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

  More

  No, I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. As I have said, proposed new section 12D(4)(b), as drafted, enables spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for both mitigation and adaptation. The Government are very clear that we need to have concern for both. As I have said, it does not need to be one or the other. I am more than happy to provide the hon. Gentleman with further detail—in writing, if he wishes—as to the operation of that subsection. On amendment 79, I recognise that the provision of social infrastructure is also an important consideration. Proposed new section 12D(4)(c) already allows spatial development strategies to describe infrastructure for the purposes of promoting or improving the social wellbeing of the area. I therefore do not consider that additional provision is needed in order to enable SDSs to describe social infrastructure. On amendment 123, I agree that, as we have discussed in relation to previous clauses, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage noted, sufficient provision of health and education facilities, and other forms of essential infrastructure listed in the amendment, is critical in supporting and facilitating new development, and in ensuring that the needs of existing communities are met. I hope that I gave the hon. Gentleman, in relation to a previous clause, some reassurance about the Government’s intent in this policy area. I also recognise that in some cases, for a variety of issues, it can be related to whether sufficient developer contributions have been secured and so on, but in many cases there is an issue of co-ordination with bodies like ICBs. I think the Government could potentially do more in this area. I note the plea from the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for his local railway station, which I will ensure is passed on to the relevant Minister in the Department for Transport but, in terms of amendment 123, I do not agree that it is necessary to enable spatial development strategies to contribute to such an outcome. Proposed new section 12D(4), as drafted, already gives strategic planning authorities the scope to specify in their strategies a wide range of infrastructure types, including those listed in the amendment. On the issue of specifying infrastructure targets, I do not think it is appropriate for spatial development strategies themselves to set infrastructure targets. Again, that is because SDSs will not allocate specific sites, and therefore they are not likely to give sufficient certainty about the precise level of infrastructure needed at that stage. That is a role for subsequent local plans, which will need to consider infrastructure needs at a more granular level when sites are allocated and, as I have said before, need to be in general conformity with other plans. Spatial development strategies will, however, be able to specify the key infrastructure needs for the development that they identify. For the reasons that I have outlined, and because we do not want to fetter the production and development of spatial development strategies—it is for the areas that bring them forward to have a measure of discretion about their infrastructure and housing tenure needs—we do not think the amendments are necessary, and I request that hon. Members withdraw them.

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

  More

  In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP. Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan. In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined. I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.

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

  More

  In introducing the nature restoration fund, we have been clear that the new approach will be expert-led and ecologically sound. The Government recognise that environmental delivery plans will play an important role in reframing the relationship between development and the environment. It is therefore essential that the plans benefit from the relevant expertise and oversight. Clause 54 is central to securing the effective scrutiny of environmental delivery plans, and sets out clear requirements for Natural England to consult relevant bodies and the public. It mandates that Natural England seek the views of specified public bodies, including—as the shadow Minister noted—the Environment Agency and relevant local planning authorities. That could also include, where relevant, any mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities. The clause also includes a power for the Secretary of State to add, via regulations, to the list of bodies that Natural England must consult, as well as to make regulations requiring public authorities to respond to consultations. The consultation process will not only lead to better environmental delivery plans, informed by relevant experts and local communities, but provide the Secretary of State with the assurance needed to approve an environmental delivery plan. We are making explicit provision for consultation, but we need to ensure that the consultation process is proportionate and does not unnecessarily delay environmental delivery plans coming forward. That is why the clause sets a consultation period of 28 working days from when the draft environmental delivery plan is published, unless regulations specify a longer period, and allows Natural England discretion over whether a redrafted environmental delivery plan requires re-consultation. In deciding whether to make an amendment, the Secretary of State must apply the overall improvement test. The clause ensures that environmental delivery plans will be appropriately scrutinised, while also being implemented at the pace we need in order to unlock development and make a meaningful contribution to nature recovery. Amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, echoes her previous amendment, as she rightly acknowledged. It would add the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection to the list of bodies that Natural England must consult when producing an environmental delivery plan. As set out previously, public consultation gives any organisation or individual an opportunity to provide views, without their being specifically listed in the legislation. The existing drafting would therefore allow the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee to provide comment through the consultation process where they think appropriate, rather than requiring Natural England to seek their views for every environmental delivery plan. It is important to note that Natural England can seek the views of any other public body, as appropriate, and the Secretary of State can expand the list to include further organisations at a later date. Opposition Members with concerns in this regard could perhaps outline why they think Natural England would not consult those bodies when it was taking forward an environmental delivery plan that it felt needed their input. We are confident that the approach in the Bill will allow any organisation or body that wants to engage with an EDP to have its voice heard. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will withdraw her amendment. Finally, amendment 125, tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would require Natural England to seek the views of impacted landowners, sea fishing businesses and owners of fishing rights when consulting on a draft EDP. Sea fishing is obviously an important industry and we understand the importance of ensuring that the views of sea fishers are heard. We also recognise that the views of landowners will be important when developing environmental delivery plans, and Natural England will of course work with landowners and all affected stakeholders. Similarly, DEFRA maintains good relationships with landowners whose land forms part of our network of protected sites, and will continue to do so following the implementation of the nature restoration fund. Crucially for amendment 125, clause 54 already ensures that Natural England consults publicly on draft EDPs, which will provide to any landowner or affected business, including sea fishing businesses and those with fishing rights to affected rivers and lakes, the proper opportunity to comment on a draft EDP. That public consultation will allow views to be heard and therefore it is not necessary to require that specified groups be consulted in addition to the consultees listed in clause 54(1). In addition to the clause already providing sufficient opportunity for consultation, it would not be practical to seek the views of all sea fishing businesses affected by an EDP, given the potential number of commercial sea fishers—particularly in areas with high concentrations of fishers and fishing communities. It would be difficult to identify and contact each one individually, as I think the amendment would make necessary, and a disproportionate layer of bureaucracy would be created that was unnecessary given the underlying requirement to consult publicly on EDPs. I hope that with that explanation, the shadow Minister will not press his amendment.

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

  More

  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today. Question put and agreed to . Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 52 Other requirements for an EDP Amendment proposed : 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert— “(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results. (11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused. (12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”— (Ellie Chowns.) This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I did not teach the subject, so I do not know. I am content to be schooled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on the philosophical meaning of a consultation versus notification. As I read it, the relevant strategic planning authority has a duty to produce and then publish a draft SDS, and they are required to notify all the groups under subsection (2). It is not exhaustive; they can add additional groups if they want to consult further. They must include, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth rightly says, an invitation to those persons to make representations, which will be considered. Strategic planning authorities have the discretion to go further. There is nothing stopping relevant authorities undertaking wider or different forms of consultation if they wish to inform their strategy. I think what we are talking about is somewhat a semantic difference. I will leave it there. I have spoken enough about this and the reasons why the Government do not think the amendment is necessary. If hon. Members feel strongly enough, they can either press it to a vote in Committee or we can return to it on Report.

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

  More

  On that I point, as I have said, the Bill sets out that SDSs “must be designed to secure that the use and development of land in the strategy area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.” We could spend many hours debating the implications of “and”, “or”, “may” or “must”—I have spent many an hour in Bill Committees doing that, when we were trying to string out the Bill for various reasons. I am happy to write to the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington and reflect on the point he makes about the wording and whether further clarity would help.

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

  More

  I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation. Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters. Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust. As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question. Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified. The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features. To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England. A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that. The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee. I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.

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

  More

  It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene. The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species. It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan. We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.

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

  More

  This is an important point, and perhaps some of the confusion arises from the stages of the process. Let me draw his attention to proposed new section 12K(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. That makes it very clear: “The strategic planning authority must…consider any representations received in accordance with regulations under section 12H(7)”— which we have just discussed— “and decide whether to make any modifications as a result”. A strategic planning authority cannot, as I think the shadow Minister asserted, bin all the representations that it receives in a cupboard—I think that was how the hon. Member for North Herefordshire phrased it. It does have to have regard to them. I just address that point, in terms of the examination, about what is required to come via submission to the Secretary of State before adoption.

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

  More

  Excellent. I wanted to make sure, given previous confusion on other clauses. Before I speak to clauses 48 and 49 and respond to the points made, I hope you will indulge me slightly, Mrs Hobhouse, as I take a few moments to set out the Government’s overriding objections to amending this really important part of the Bill, which I know will be subjected to rigorous scrutiny by the Opposition. As set out in our plan for change, this Government are committed to reforming the planning system to build the homes and critical infrastructure our country needs. The reforms in this Bill are critical to meeting our ambitious targets of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions on major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. However, we have been consistently clear that meeting those objectives need not, and should not, come at the cost of the environment. By pursuing smart planning reforms, we can unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country, delivering a win-win for development and the environment, and building a future where nature and the economy flourish together. The new approach that the nature restoration fund will facilitate will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in terms of driving the recovery of protected sites and species, thereby delivering more for nature, not less. The fund will move us away from an unacceptable status quo. I think there is recognition in Committee that not only does the status quo deters and constrains development, but all too often it fails to improve our environment.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for clearly setting out his intent. Again, I preface my remarks by saying that, given the strength of feeling that has been expressed this afternoon, I will certainly reflect. As a point of principle—I will repeat this clearly, so that it is on the record—the Government of course want local communities to be actively involved in the production of a spatial development strategy for their area. All persons have the right to make representations on a draft SDS. However, we do not think it is necessary to be overly prescriptive about how strategic planning authorities should go about seeking the views of their communities, or to require them to demonstrate how they are doing so. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, following the implementation of changes made in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, local planning authorities will no longer be required to produce a statement of community involvement setting out how they are engaging with their community. I do not think it would be appropriate to place a similar requirement on strategic planning authorities. Similarly, I do not think it is necessary to give people the right to be heard at examination. It is true that, unlike for local plans, there is no formal right for persons to appear and be heard at the examination of a spatial development strategy. As I have said several times, it is the Government’s intention that spatial development strategies should act as high-level documents that set the context for subsequent local plans that must be in general conformance with them. Notably, unlike local plans, spatial development strategies do not allocate specific sites for development. Therefore, it is more appropriate for people to have the right to appear at local plan examinations and for examinations of spatial development strategies to be kept proportionate to their specific role. I say that having heard very clearly the hon. Gentleman accept and understand the difference between what the Government are trying to achieve via SDSs vis-à-vis local development plans, for example. Experience shows that planning inspectors go to lengths to ensure that a broad range of relevant interests and views are heard at examinations of the London plan, which, while not identical in legislative underpinning, is the most comparable SDS that is out there. For reference, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows given his background and experience, the most recent spatial development strategy examination —that of the London plan in 2019—took place over 12 weeks and the list of participants ran to 27 pages. For those reasons, we do not think the amendment is necessary, and I kindly ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

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

  More

  I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met. I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area. There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes. In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55. That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.

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

  More

  The hon. Lady cut me off early in my remarks, so let me develop them somewhat and deal with the specific point that, by our reading, the amendment deals with. The list of public bodies detailed in new section 12H(3) sets out that strategic planning authorities must consider notifying community and interest groups that a draft of their spatial development strategy has been published. In subsection (3), it is very clear who the strategic planning authority must consider notifying—I have it in front me. That list is by no means exhaustive or exclusive. Indeed, new section 12H(4) requires strategic planning authorities to invite representations, as I have said, about their draft strategy. That invitation is open to all, including residents and businesses within the strategy area. The purpose of new section 12H(3) is to ensure that strategic planning authorities consider a broad range of opinion when they consult on their draft strategy. There is nothing in the Bill, or elsewhere, to prevent residents or businesses from participating in the consultation, or to prevent strategic planning authorities from notifying them of the consultation specifically. For those reasons, we do not think—

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

  More

  I will continue then and turn to amendment 148.

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

  More

  May I press the hon. Lady, so that I understand her carefully made point? A draft SDS will be published and it will be a requirement, under clause 12H, that the strategic planning authority either notifies or consults, and that will then be open for comment or representations. I want to understand the hon. Lady’s point, because I will go away and reflect on it. In what way does she think that is different from the consultation process on, for example, a local development plan?

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

  More

  I will—

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

  More

  I am more than happy, in the interests of time, to set out what the Government are doing on this agenda through ministerial colleagues, but I return to this fundamental point: what are we introducing spatial development strategies for? They are high-level plans for infrastructure investment for housing growth. They need not replicate every existing duty and requirement in national policy. Local authorities are already required to review and assess air quality in the area regularly, setting air quality management areas where national objectives are not being met. National planning policy is clear that opportunities to improve air quality or mitigate impact should be identified at the plan-making stage to ensure a strategic approach. Again, I make the point that SDSs have to ensure that local plans are in general conformity with them. Planning decisions should ensure that any development in air quality management areas and clean air zones is consistent with the local air quality action plan. Placing responsibilities—this is the fundamental point, which also applies to other amendment—on strategic planning authorities in relation to air quality management would replicate existing duties, and we therefore do not think the amendment is necessary. The hon. Lady may feel strongly and wish to press it to a vote. However, although it is entirely laudable that hon. Members with amendments are taking an opportunity to make points about the value of existing national duties and requirements, or the ways those may need to change, I hope that I have clearly outlined why the provisions on introducing an effective layer of strategic planning across England are not the place to have those debates.

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

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that point. We will come on to discuss our approach to development and the environment more generally when we reach part 3 of the Bill. In response to his specific question, it is probably best dealt with in the letter I will send to the Committee on this matter, where I can pull together a range of points. The important point I am trying to stress, for the purposes of amendment 1, is that if a strategic planning authority considers the identification and protection of chalk streams to be a matter that should be included in its SDS, proposed new section 12D(1) already makes clear that an SDS must include policies relating to the “development and use of land in the strategy area, which are of strategic importance to that area” so that it can be taken into account. There is nothing to prevent strategic planning authorities from including such policies in their spatial development strategies if they consider them to be of strategic importance. As I said, we have an ongoing debate about when centralisation is appropriate or not; I assume the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will tell me that it is, in this instance, in her view. But for those reasons, we do not consider these amendments necessary to achieve the desired effect.

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

  More

  Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns. Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures. The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about. Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse. In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed. EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund. A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered. As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency. Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee. I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats. Existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the national planning policy framework will continue to apply. Those protections provide that where development results in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, development should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. That policy is set out in the NPPF and applies to those particular habitats.

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

  More

  In the interests of making progress, let me say that I have understood the hon. Lady’s point, and will happily go away and reflect on it, but we do not think the amendment is necessary. For the reasons I have set out, we will resist the amendment if she presses it to a vote. As I said, I am more than happy to reflect on her point; she has made it very clearly and it has been understood.

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

  More

  In that case, I will sit down.

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

  More

  I will start by responding to amendment 124 moved by the hon Member for Taunton and Wellington. I will then speak to clause 47 stand part, Government amendment 48 and schedule 3. In reference to amendment 124, it is true that, unlike local plans, which must be reviewed at least every five years, there is no set timescale in which spatial development strategies must be reviewed or replaced. Spatial development strategies are intended to be long-term strategies that provide greater certainty for investment and development decisions. The areas producing them will vary greatly in their size, the scale of development that they require and the changes over time which they must respond to. This light-touch review requirement gives strategic planning authorities greater discretion to review their strategy as and when they feel it necessary to do so. By way of comparison, the London plan, which has the same review requirement, has been fully replaced twice, and another version is now under way; it has also undergone several interim reviews and updates. I hope that strategic planning authorities will exhibit similar diligence in maintaining their SDSs. In the event that a strategic planning authority fails to adequately keep its strategy under review, the Secretary of State will have the power under the Bill to direct the authority to review all or part of its strategy. For those reasons we do not think that this amendment is required. The Government firmly believe that housing and infrastructure needs cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger than local scale, and that new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning are essential. A nationally consistent system will underpin the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament, help to deliver better infrastructure, and boost economic growth. For those reasons I hope that the hon. Member will understand what we are trying to achieve with this clause and withdraw the amendment. Government amendment 48 makes consequential changes to regulation 111 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to add spatial development strategies drawn up under the Bill to the definition of “land use plan”, and update the definition of “plan-making authority” and the references to “giving effect to a land use plan” to reflect the introduction of the new spatial development strategies. The amendment will bring the new spatial strategies into line with the spatial development strategy for London, along with local and neighbourhood plans. It ensures that strategic planning authorities will also be bound to carry out habitats regulations assessments. A habitats regulations assessment will identify any aspects of the spatial development strategy that may have an adverse effect on special areas of conservation, special protection areas and Ramsar sites. That will ensure that the impacts of development on protected habitat sites are appropriately considered. Finally, on clause 47 stand part, as we have discussed at some length, the clause reintroduces a system of strategic plan making across England. The recent period has been something of an aberration, as throughout most of the past 50 years, England has had a strategic tier of plan-making. We have had structure plans at county level, regional planning guidance from central Government and regional spatial strategies prepared at regional level. The past 14 years, without any formal planning since the abolition of regional spatial strategies, have been anomalous, and this Government’s firmly held view is that that has led to suboptimal outcomes. Over the last 40 years, development levels have consistently failed to meet the country’s needs, resulting in a housing crisis and significant affordability gaps across the country. Additionally, the number of local plans being adopted or updated has continued to decline, with only about 30% of plans adopted in the last five years. As is generally accepted by hon. Members, the planning system is in dire need of reform. A system of strategic plans is central to our efforts to get Britain building again. The duty to co-operate introduced by the Localism Act 2011 was intended to replace strategic planning, but it has failed. Instead, it created a bureaucratic system and significant uncertainty, led to numerous local plan failures, and ultimately failed to deliver the kind of joined-up thinking and co-operation across local authority boundaries that was intended. Indeed, the failure of the duty was such that the previous Government legislated for its repeal in the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023. I can assure the Committee that this Government will honour the previous Government’s intentions and commence the relevant provisions of the 2023 Act to repeal the duty. Our goal is to establish a system of strategic planning that garners support from all sides of the House, and so create a stable and consistent framework for planning the growth that this country so desperately needs.

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

  More

  Did we hear about the other amendment, Mrs Hobhouse?