Matthew Pennycook MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his response and questions. Again, I make the point that with a number of these provisions we are trying to align the Highways Act with other consenting regimes. I do not know whether his position is that the statutory objection period in those other consenting regimes—for example, the Planning Act 2008—should be lengthened. I would argue that such an extension would add time and complexity. We think that should be brought into line with the others. We think that 30 days is the appropriate period, that the existing arrangements, which set out a period of not less than six weeks, are too long, and that we should bring the Highways Act into line with the other regimes. On that basis, we do not think that the clause sets a precedent for the shortening of objection periods, because objection periods of about four weeks, as I have said, can be found in other infrastructure consenting regimes. That is an adequate period of time in which to submit objections. The shadow Minister asked another, separate question about the Secretary of State’s ability to extend deadlines from the 10-week period. Again, in any such instances, the Secretary of State would need to send written notice of the extension to the relevant parties in those cases, setting out why an extension is required. I hope that on that basis the shadow Minister is reassured about the use of that particular part of the clause. Question put and agreed to . Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 28 Procedure for certain orders and schemes Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that contribution and I recognise the reasonable concern he raises. If he will allow me, because it is a very technical aspect of the Bill, I will write to him with full details of how we see this power working, particularly in respect of compensation measures. I think his remarks recognised that the present arrangements do not provide the necessary certainty for landowners that they can regain their land. They force applicants to use disproportionate powers. We are trying, through the clause, to provide certainty that there is a way to take possession of land temporarily when required. It is worth saying that there is a temporary possession power in the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. It is a different mechanism; it has not yet been enacted. We are trying to achieve a fairly simple clarification through the Bill, which will not require us to enact powers that are above and beyond what is required under the simplification to which the clause gives effect. It is an uncontroversial procedural change that will make the process more certain and efficient for both parties and provide them with reassurances. Question put and agreed to. Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 Replacement of model clauses with guidance Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clause seeks to address the fact that under the existing system, a statutory instrument is required to approve applications under sections 16 and 106(3) of the Highways Act, and for orders under section 10, which are made by the Highways Authority in the form of a draft statutory instrument, whereas a simpler confirmation process exists for other applications under that Act. An SI is currently required for applications to make or unmake a trunk road or special road, to construct a special road, or to build a road bridge over or road tunnel under navigable waters. Those statutory instruments are not subject to any parliamentary procedure, but they take extra time to prepare. That represents an unnecessary and disproportionate burden of bureaucracy in our view. As I have mentioned, the Highways Act already contains a quicker process for confirming other types of application via a confirmation document issued by the Department for Transport. The clause will simply allow the applications to which I have referred to be confirmed via a confirmation document issued by the Department. In short, that again aligns the handling processes across the relevant parts of the Highways Act. That will support the Government’s goal of speeding up the consenting of transport infrastructure by streamlining the process. To maintain transparency in the decision-making process, the clause ensures that a confirmation notice must be published in the public domain. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to . Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 29 Compulsory acquisition powers to include taking of temporary possession Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 32 and 33 relate to public inquiries under the Transport and Works Act. Clause 32 will amend the circumstances in which an objection is considered to an application under that Act. Currently, if an objection is raised to an application under the Act, a public inquiry or hearing can be required to be held, even if the objection is deemed to lack substance. That can result in costly and lengthy public inquiries taking place, even where objections lack merit. The length of the inquiry process can range greatly depending on the complexity of what is being examined, from six months to two years. Clause 32 will mean that a public inquiry is held only when an objection is raised that is considered by the determining authority to be serious enough to merit such treatment. A streamlined process for considering objections saves time and cost for applicants. All objections will continue to be decided—I want to stress this point—entirely on the merits of the arguments put forward. This not about removing the voices of individuals or communities; instead, it ensures that the objections process remains proportionate, so serious objections are given due attention. Clause 33 makes amendments to section 11 of the Transport and Works Act regarding decisions on costs arising from a public inquiry. It will enable an inspector conducting the public inquiry to make decisions on those costs, unless the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them. Currently, the inspector must write a report with recommendations of costs to the Secretary of State based on the conduct of parties taking part in the public inquiry. That approach contrasts with the Planning Act 2008, where cost decisions are made by the examining authority. By delegating the decision-making capability to the inspector conducting the inquiry, we will ensure that claims are resolved more quickly for all stakeholders. That will reduce administrative burden in determining such cases and save time, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. The Secretary of State in England, and Welsh Ministers in Wales, will retain the ability to direct that a cost decision is to be determined by them should they not wish to delegate responsibility on a potentially contentious case. The clauses, as I have argued, will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and administrative burdens, helping to deliver transport infrastructure more efficiently. I commend them to the Committee.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clauses 30 to 41 make various amendments to the Transport and Works Act 1992. I would hope that the Committee has a shared recognition that that Act of Parliament needs to be more efficient for applicants applying for transport infrastructure schemes such as new railways or tramways in England and Wales. This will allow transport infrastructure projects to be delivered as efficiently as possible, providing faster decisions and support economic growth. Clause 30 allows the Secretary of State in England and Welsh Ministers in Wales the power to move template model clauses from legislation into guidance. The model clauses are intended to streamline the drafting of Transport and Works Act orders, but they can currently only be amended through secondary legislation. Setting them out in more flexible guidance, rather than legislation, will allow them to be updated more regularly via a more efficient and faster process. That supports the Bill’s aim of simplifying and streamlining transport rules, ensuring that we have a more efficient legal framework moving forward. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 Removal of special procedure for projects of national significance Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Western. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) on securing this important debate. As hon. Members will be aware, he has long championed housing issues on behalf of both renters and homeowners in his constituency and across the country. He made a powerful case in his opening remarks for action to tackle the blight of cold and damp homes. I also thank all the other hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his kind remarks, which I very much appreciate. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick); the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon); and of course the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). I will attempt to respond to all the points that have been raised in this debate, but I hope that colleagues who represent seats in Wales and Northern Ireland will understand that, as it is a devolved matter, I am not responsible for housing policy in their areas. However, I will ensure that comments are passed on to my colleagues in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office. Everyone, regardless of whether they are a homeowner, a leaseholder or a tenant, has a basic right to a safe, secure, affordable and decent home. Yet, as we have heard from the many cases that have been shared this afternoon, and as I am acutely aware from my south-east London constituency, far too many families live in homes that are cold, damp and often mouldy. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley is absolutely right to argue that non-decent housing is not simply a housing issue, and the Government recognise that it is also a matter of public health and can exacerbate existing inequalities. It is imperative that we act decisively to improve the quality of housing in all tenures, and that is precisely what this Labour Government are doing. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that have been raised in this debate and to provide the House with more detail on the steps that we are taking. I will begin by addressing the problem of cold and damp homes, which has been the focus of the debate. No tenant should be forced to live in a home that places their health and safety at risk. Although the proportion of homes with the highest energy efficiency ratings has increased over the last 10 years, an unacceptable number of English homes are not well maintained, and the number of homes suffering from damp has grown over the past five years. A number of hon. Members mentioned several statistics, and I will give my own. In 2023, 5% of all homes in England had damp in them. The situation is worse for tenants, with 9% of privately rented homes and 7% of social homes experiencing damp. As hon. Members will know, one of the main causes of damp is excess cold, and large numbers of owner-occupiers and tenants are living in fuel poverty. Some 7.5% of owner-occupiers, 13.1% of social tenants and a staggering 21.5% of PRS tenants are fuel poor, with all the implications that that has for their physical and mental health and wellbeing. It is stating the obvious, but it is worth restating that the social and economic benefits of bearing down on the problem are significant. It has been estimated that remedying dangerously hazardous cold in people’s homes would save the NHS over £11 million every year, and that fixing damp and mould would save a further £9.7 million. For those reasons, the Government are taking decisive action to drive up housing standards. We are clear that when it comes to reducing the number of cold and damp homes, the existing regulatory system is not fit for purpose. Social rented homes must already meet the decent homes standard, but the part that refers to thermal comfort has not been updated since it was developed nearly a quarter of a century ago. Moreover, there is absolutely no obligation for private landlords even to meet that standard, meaning that, as I said, an astonishing 21% of privately rented homes are not decent. That is unacceptable, and it is why we will consult this year on an updated and reformed decent homes standard, which will apply to both the social and private rented sectors. That means that safe, secure housing will be the standard that people can expect in both social and privately rented properties, at no distinction between tenures. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green rightly mentioned enforcement, which is an essential aspect of bringing a new decent homes standard into force. She will be aware—and I give credit to the previous Government for this—that the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023 introduced proactive consumer regulations, overseen by the Regulator of Social Housing, which can hold all registered social landlords to account. The regulator has strong enforcement powers, so where there are serious failings it can take effective action, including issuing unlimited fines. We are also taking immediate action to clamp down on damp, mould and other hazards. Both the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley mentioned the death of two-year-old Awaab Ishak in 2020. As we have heard, Awaab died as a result of prolonged exposure to mould in his social rented home in Greater Manchester. It was an avoidable tragedy, and it shames us as a nation. I say that wherever I go; I think it utterly shames us, and it must never be repeated. That is why we have committed to implementing Awaab’s law, which was commendably legislated for by the previous Government. From October this year, social landlords will be required to address damp and mould within fixed timescales and carry out all emergency repairs as soon as possible, within no more than 24 hours.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  I will just finish this point, because the sequencing is important for hon. Members to understand. We will then expand the law to include other health and safety hazards in 2026 and 2027.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  We speak regularly with our counterparts in the devolved authorities, but I will make a special point of ensuring that the comments that have been made today are passed on to the relevant Ministers within those authorities and, as I said, with colleagues in the Scotland and Wales Offices. Once again, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley on securing this important debate, and thank all those who have contributed to it. We all know the detrimental impact that non-decent housing has on the lives of our constituents, and that more must be done to drive up standards across housing tenures. I hope that this afternoon I have provided hon. Members with reassurance that the Government are working with determination to drive a transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of housing in this country.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  It has been acknowledged that I have some knowledge of housing, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me into an area about which I do not have particular knowledge, not least because the warm homes plan is the responsibility not of my Department but of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. I am sure that Department will have heard all the comments that have been made about the warm homes plan, and I will ensure that the relevant Ministers reflect on them. There is currently a zero rate of VAT until March 2027 on energy-saving measures such as insulation and low-carbon heating, making it cheaper for landlords to invest in their properties and reduce their energy usage. Other support is available to landlords to improve their properties. An eligibility tool is available on gov.uk to help people find the support available to them via the home upgrade grant and the Great British insulation scheme. Of course, it is not just rented homes where we need to take action. We are also considering options to ensure a fair, proportionate and affordable approach to improving the energy performance of owner-occupied homes. The warm homes plan will help people find ways to save money on energy bills and will transform our ageing building stock into comfortable, low-carbon homes that are fit for the future. We will upgrade up to 5 million homes across the country by accelerating the installation of efficient new technologies such as heat pumps, solar batteries and insulation. Before I conclude, I should mention how our efforts to improve standards and quality in homes of all tenures fit in with a wider housing strategy. In many cases, cold and damp homes are a symptom of the wider housing crisis that we inherited. That acute and entrenched crisis will not be solved by raising quality and standards; we need new supply. That is why the Government’s plan for change includes a hugely ambitious milestone of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England in this Parliament. We know that is a stretching target, but it is deliverable, in our view, and it is essential. We have already announced changes to planning policy to support the delivery of affordable homes. We have also provided two immediate one-year cash injections totalling £800 million to the affordable homes programme to deliver an extra 7,800 homes. On 25 March, we injected a further £2 billion into the affordable homes programme from 2026-27 to build up to 18,000 new homes by the end of this Parliament. That funding is a down payment on future long-term investment and will act as a bridge to the future grant programme to be announced in the spending review. In that programme, we want to put particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. These are new homes, built to high standards, that will be warm and dry.

• 8 May 2025 · Cold and Damp Homes · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the situation for lots of families in temporary accommodation is acute, and we are aware that there are real decency problems in that respect. The Renters’ Rights Bill provides for the extension of the decent homes standard to temporary accommodation, but we are obviously giving very serious consideration to how we improve standards for those in temporary accommodation and how we very rapidly move people out and into, in almost all cases, a decent, safe, secure and affordable social rented home. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for recognising that we have not done enough on that in the past, so we need to do more in the future. Through the Renters’ Rights Bill, we will extend the requirements of Awaab’s law to private landlords. Beyond Awaab’s law, we are legislating to introduce electrical safety standards in social housing to bring them in line with requirements in the private rented sector. We are working with the housing ombudsman to ensure that tenants can seek redress when things go wrong, and we are committed to ensuring that social landlords have the right skills and qualifications to deliver housing services for their tenants. As the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green, said, we are making tenancies in the private rented sector more secure by finally abolishing section 21 no-fault evictions. That will mean that tenants can have the confidence to complain to their landlords about poor conditions and use their right to take their landlord to court if necessary without fear of eviction. It is all very well increasing the quality of social housing, but many people struggle to afford to heat their homes. That is not just a health hazard but a direct cause of damp and mould. An energy-efficient home is a warm and dry home, which is why we are already consulting on raising minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector, and have committed to do the same in the social rented sector in the coming months. We have committed an initial £3.4 billion to the warm homes plan funding over the next three years, including £1.8 billion to support fuel poverty schemes. That will reduce annual bills considerably for tenants. We also recognise the contribution that more energy-efficient buildings will make to meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2050. Future standards, which will be introduced later this year, will set out how new homes and buildings can move away from reliance on volatile fossil fuels, and ensure they are fit for a net zero future. I look forward to updating the House on what those future standards entail in due course. We know that most landlords, private and social, want to provide high-quality accommodation and work to fix damp and cold conditions as soon as they can, but we also know that our reforms will come at a cost to some. That is why our new warm homes local grant will help the private rented sector, and the warm homes social housing fund will support social housing providers and tenants.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. In the last sitting, we discussed the various clauses and Government amendments in this group, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their considered engagement with them. The proposed changes we are considering are, without question, a significant evolution of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, and it is entirely right and proper that they are subject to intensive scrutiny. As the Committee is aware, I set out the Government’s position on this matter in considerable detail in my written ministerial statement from 23 April. I therefore intend to focus my remarks on providing useful further points of clarification about the rationale for the proposed reforms and how we see the system operating once they have been made. In her remarks, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire conceded that the NSIP process can take a long time, but she implied that the problem was merely confined to individual applications. The Government disagree. From our perspective, the problem that these and other changes in this chapter are intended to remedy are systemic. The status quo is not working, and all too often it is burdensome to applicants and consultees alike. We know that the performance of the NSIP regime as a whole has deteriorated sharply over recent years. We know that pre-application periods have, on average, nearly doubled since 2013, increasing from over 14 months to nearly 28 months in 2021. As much as Labour Members welcome any and every reminder of the chaos unleashed under recent Conservative Administrations, I do not believe that the deterioration we are discussing can be attributed to the uncertainty that the post-2016 period engendered. The evidence clearly points to the fact that inefficiencies in the NSIP system, both structural and cultural, are driving delays and high costs. We heard examples this morning of the fact that the documentation underpinning consents has been getting longer, and in too many instances now runs to tens of thousands of pages. Part of the reason is that the statutory and prescriptive nature of the pre-application requirements—I again remind the Committee that they are absent from other planning regimes, including those used for applications for new housing—are driving perverse outcomes. It is precisely because the requirements are statutory that applicants fear that falling short of them will see their project rejected further down the line, or leave them exposed to judicial review. As we have discussed, the result is that projects are slowed down as developers undertake ever more rounds of consultation and produce greater amounts of documentation to ensure that the requirements are met. Sensible improvements are deterred because applicants worry that they will require further rounds of consultation to insulate them from challenge. In short, as I argued in the previous sitting, the dynamics of the system are actively encouraging risk aversion and gold-plating and are compelling applicants to go above and beyond what may be required in law, rather than merely ensuring that an application is acceptable in planning terms. Because the root of the problem is the statutory nature of the requirements, it is worth noting that the same behavioural incentives would be in play if we reinserted into the Bill precise statutory criteria for what constitutes effective consultation, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington suggested we should. In his contribution, the shadow Minister argued that we should focus on improving rather than removing the statutory requirements in question. However, he overlooked the fact that the NSIP action plan, published by the previous Government in February 2023, contained a range of reforms designed to drive more effective and proportionate approaches to consultation and engagement, including new cost-recoverable pre-application services for applicants at the Planning Inspectorate, and revised and strengthened pre-application guidance. While those steps were welcome, and this Government are seeking to embed new services and cost-recovery mechanisms, the feedback we have received from a wide range of stakeholders suggests that they will not deliver the necessary step change needed to tackle risk aversion and gold-plating. It is the dynamic that has arisen as a result of the very existence of the statutory pre-application requirements in question that is hampering their nominal purpose of producing better outcomes, and the present arrangements are driving up costs not only for developers, but for the bill payers and taxpayers we all represent. The Government are in complete agreement with the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that early, meaningful and constructive engagement with those affected, including local authorities, statutory consultees, landowners and local communities, often leads to better schemes, greater local benefits and improved mitigation. We still want and expect the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. As part of that process, we still want and expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement to take place and for positive changes to be made to applications. However, we want and expect it to take place without the downsides that the current statutory requirements are causing. Removing the statutory requirements in question does not signify that pre-submission consultation and high-quality engagement is no longer important. Statutory guidance that the Government will be required to produce will encourage such pre-application engagement and consultation, but with applicants given the flexibility to carry it out in the way that they consider best for their proposed development, in accordance with that guidance. Equally as importantly, the system will still reward high-quality engagement and consultation. The Planning Inspectorate will continue to assess whether applications are suitable to proceed to examination. We expect guidance to emphasise that without adequate engagement and consultation, applications are unlikely to be able to do so. Guidance and advice from the Planning Inspectorate will be aimed at helping applicants demonstrate that they are of a satisfactory standard in terms of meeting that process. Ultimately, all communities will still be able to have their voices heard, whether that is through objecting outright to applications or providing evidence of adverse impacts through the post-submission examination process, which all applications obviously still need to go through.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 8 streamlines the judicial review process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. The changes apply to legal challenges against decisions on development consent orders and national policy statements. At the moment, individuals wanting to bring challenges against nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as nuclear plants, railway lines, wind farms and other projects, have up to three attempts to try to obtain permission from the courts. As noted by Lord Banner’s independent review last year into the delays caused by these legal challenges, each attempt extends the duration of a claim by several weeks, and in some cases, by several months. The clause will remove the paper permission stage, meaning that applications for judicial review will go straight to an oral hearing in the High Court. The clause will also remove the right to appeal for cases that are deemed totally without merit at the oral hearing, which becomes the only attempt for these cases. The Government are committed to maintaining access to justice, which is why the right of appeal will remain for cases that are refused permission at the oral hearing, but that are not deemed totally without merit. The changes are a necessary means of preventing meritless claims from holding up development by exhausting the appeals process and of ensuring that legitimate legal challenges are heard promptly. I commend the clause to the Committee.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is certainly the case that it is not only in the pre-submission phase where slippages in timeframes have occurred. The hon. Member makes a valid point about the fact that we have seen a pattern in some Departments of Secretaries of State not making timely decisions. This Government have sought to improve upon the past performance. We are already doing so, but I am open to ideas on how we might tighten the process. The Government are giving further thought to the general matter of how consents are taken through Departments. To conclude, the changes proposed will make a significant contribution to speeding up and streamlining the consenting process for critical infrastructure, and we are convinced that in many cases they will produce better outcomes than the status quo. I therefore urge the Committee to support them. Amendment 57 agreed to . Amendment made: 58, in clause 4, page 8, line 32, leave out subsection (3).— (Matthew Pennycook.) This amendment is consequential on NC44. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill . Ordered, That clause 4 be transferred to the end of line 32 on page 12 . —(Matthew Pennycook .) Clause 5 disagreed to. Clause 6 Applications for development consent: acceptance stage Amendments made: 60, in clause 6, page 10, line 4, leave out “follows” and insert “set out in subsections (2) to (13)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 68. Amendment 61, in clause 6, page 10, line 25, after “Secretary of State” insert “and others”. This amendment is consequential on subsection (5)(d) of NC45. Amendment 62, in clause 6, page 11, line 4, leave out from “satisfying” to “and” in line 6 and insert “section 48 (duty to publicise),”. This amendment is consequential on NC44. Amendment 63, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 12 to 14. This amendment is consequential on NC44. Amendment 64, in clause 6, page 11, line 16, leave out “50” and insert “50(1)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63. Amendment 65, in clause 6, page 11, leave out lines 17 to 20. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 63. Amendment 66, in clause 6, page 11, line 21, leave out subsection (9) and insert— “(9) Omit subsection (5).” This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64. Amendment 67, in clause 6, page 12, line 32, at end insert— “(14) In consequence of the amendments in subsections (7)(c) and (10), omit section 137(3) and (4) of the Localism Act 2011.”— ( Matthew Pennycook .) This technical amendment omits provisions of the Localism Act 2011 that are no longer required (because of changes made by clause 6 of the Bill). Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 Planning Act 2008: legal challenges Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, for his constructive tone on this clause—and others; I do not mean to confine his constructive attitude to just this clause. I welcome his praise for Lord Banner’s review, which I agree was thoughtful and insightful. As part of that review Lord Banner made it clear that although the duration differs between different applications, each attempt to apply for a judicial review currently extends the duration of a claim by, on average, several weeks, and in some cases by several months. In large numbers of cases, time is added by legal challenges that are unsuccessful. The changes made by the Bill aim to strike the right balance between improving efficiency and ensuring access to justice. To be clear, this clause does remove the paper permission stage, but only makes changes by removing the right to appeal for cases that are deemed “totally without merit”. Other cases will retain that right of appeal if they are deemed to be with merit and able to be considered. We think these changes will make a difference to the time that projects take to work their way through the system, and we will work with the judiciary to advance a number of other changes to the process for NSIP judicial reviews, such as introducing target timescales for cases that we think will have a beneficial impact. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee. Clause 9 Connections to electricity network: licence and other modifications

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reasonable questions. If I have understood him, he makes a separate point about the statutory consultee system. As he will know—I refer him to my relevant written ministerial statement—we are seeking to reform that system in a number of ways. On clause 8 specifically, the changes will not affect the ability to challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions in court. They are simply designed to reduce delays. We are not preventing anyone from challenging our planning decisions. Obviously, Government do not control how many of those challenges are made. We are tightening up the process so that if a challenge is judged to be meritless by the court—not by Government—it cannot be dragged on for years through numerous further appeals. Only cases deemed totally without merit in the oral permission hearing in the High Court will be prevented from appealing to the Court of Appeal. Other cases will continue to be able to appeal the refusal of permission to the Court of Appeal. That will ensure that there is no possibility of meritless claims holding up nationally significant infrastructure projects, while maintaining access to justice in line with our domestic and international obligations. I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that we are not removing wholesale the ability to mount judicial review challenges. Some have called for us to go further, but we think the proposals strike the right balance between addressing the removal of the paper permission stage and dealing with the issue of meritless claims. On that basis, I hope that he is reassured and may even feel inclined to support the measure.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Planning Act 2008 provides a uniform approach to consenting, covering a wide range of sectors and types of development. However, this may not always be proportionate for specific developments. Clause 3 provides a new power for the Secretary of State to issue a direction to disapply the requirement for development consent for specified developments that would otherwise fall under the NSIP regime. The clause contains several conditions governing when a direction may or may not be given by the Secretary of State, such as when a request for direction is needed, who may submit such a request, and what such a request may contain. The Secretary of State may give a direction only if they consider it appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply to a specific development. This would mean that a development consent order is no longer required and that the development in question could instead be considered by an alternative appropriate consenting authority, bringing greater flexibility to the system of planning consent by ensuring that the appropriate regime is used, based on the specific circumstances at hand rather than on strict statutory definitions and thresholds. This will help to reduce burdens on applicants that may otherwise be disproportionate, and to develop a more streamlined and responsive decision-making process. Let me make it clear to hon. Members what the current arrangements provide for. Section 35 of the Planning Act allows the Secretary of State to bring into the NSIP regime specified developments that do not come within the statutory meaning of a nationally significant infrastructure project. Clause 3 will provide similar flexibility but in the other direction, enabling more proportionate and efficient consenting processes. I can provide several examples of where such flexibility may be beneficial. A railway development may be within the scope of the Planning Act, but its impacts and benefits may be more local, and it may not require the compulsory acquisition of land. It might be more appropriate for such cases to be considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992 regime. Similarly, other large developments often include multiple elements that need to be considered under different consenting regimes, leading to disproportionate work and costs in preparing multiple applications. For example, an access road that is secondary to the main development may require consent under the NSIP regime, while other elements of the development, such as housing, may fall under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 regime. Clause 3 will allow for a direction to be provided by the Secretary of State to enable the applicant to include the access road in the planning application under the Town and Country Planning Act route. There have also been cases where it has been argued that a development close to exiting statutory thresholds could be more appropriately considered through other, more proportionate regimes. We have all heard the examples—I have heard them in many debates secured by hon. Members—and they were highlighted again in our planning reform working paper. There are many examples of solar developments that have been deliberately kept just below the Planning Act threshold of 50 MW to avoid coming within the NSIP regime. We committed to increasing the statutory threshold for solar developments to 100 MW in December 2024, but as the technology continues to improve, similar issues may occur in the future, and other examples could emerge in other fields. The current arrangement has resulted in the clustering of developments just below the NSIP threshold and less energy being generated overall, undermining our work to strengthen this country’s energy security. The clause provides far more flexibility at local level so that, even under the new arrangements, an applicant who wants to bring forward a 120 MW solar application need not be deterred by the nature of the present NSIP system being slow and uncertain, which we are taking steps to address. They will be able to divide their application into, say, four different applications within the TCPA regime if they have a constructive and pro-development council that they feel they can work with. That would be a faster route to getting a decision on their application, as the clause allows them to apply to the Secretary of State to make a redirection into an alternative consenting regime.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I say gently to the hon. Lady that she has ignored everything I have said. Every one of the changes that will be able to be made through this process will have already been subject to relevant consultation and parliamentary scrutiny. There is the example of changes to the national planning policy framework, which underwent a huge amount of parliamentary scrutiny through a Select Committee and a statement on the Floor of the House. It is not particularly problematic that we should be able to quickly, in a timely manner—with Select Committee input if it is able to respond in the necessary timeframe—make that change to a national policy statement to ensure that it is up to date and effective. It is worth considering what the current arrangements require. Currently, the consultation, publicity and parliamentary scrutiny appeal that the Government must follow when updating an NPS, even for a minor change of the kind I have spoken about, is exactly the same as designating an entirely new NPS. There is no ability at the moment for timely and often minor reflective updates that will only reflect policy changes that have already been made subject to scrutiny, and court decisions that have been issued—there is not process for that. We think the system would work far better in most cases if there were. Although it is a matter for the House, we would hope that in nearly every instance the relevant Select Committee would be able to respond in time, and that those views would be taken into account to help the NPS be updated in a more proportionate and effective manner.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Well, it would have to have been subject to consultation and scrutiny in this House in order to meet the criteria. We think that it is therefore reasonable to take it through in this manner. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is suggesting that there will be a complete absence of parliamentary scrutiny, and in that way is misleading the Committee regarding the effect of the clause.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I want to be very clear about the circumstances in which this measure can be used. As he will appreciate, I will not comment on a specific application, for reasons he will well understand, but, in such a scenario, I struggle to see how that application could feasibly come within the NSIP regime process at all. It sounds like a straight-down-the-line application that would be made by the applicant, across two local authorities, through the Town and Country Planning Act regime. What the clause seeks to do is ensure that, in cases where, due to the nature of the development, the only route to go down is the NSIP regime via a development consent order, an applicant can apply to have that application determined in a different consenting order if it will lead to a faster, more proportionate and more effective decision-making process. As I say, it will therefore be for the Secretary of State to consider the unique circumstances and impacts of any specific development so that the consenting of certain developments can be undertaken by whatever body the applicant appealing to the Secretary of State says is the more appropriate route. In most instances, I would assume that that would be the local planning authority, but I gave the example of the Transport and Works Acts regime for roads. We are trying to get at the type of examples where developments need limited consents or may not need compulsory acquisition—in a sense, when the one-stop-shop nature of the NSIP regime may not be the most proportionate means to take that through. The redirection under the clause will not be appropriate for all developments, and, for a direction to be given, the Secretary of State must consider that it is appropriate for an alternative consenting regime to apply rather than the Planning Act.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 4, page 8, line 21, leave out subsection (2). This amendment is consequential on NC44.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are agnostic on which route a developer will wish to go down. As I say, developers will have to apply to the Secretary of State and make a case that, in the specific circumstances in which they are operating, there should be an alternative consenting route. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are making significant efforts to speed up and streamline the town and country planning regime. From previous debates, I know that he takes issue with some of that, but if he has had a conversion, I would very much welcome it.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to tease out a point here, because one of the reasons the Government are confident that the change will lead to beneficial outcomes is that high-quality engagement and consultation routinely takes place in other planning regimes that do not have statutory pre-application requirements. Why do Opposition Members think that their removal, which will equalise all planning consent regimes so that statutory pre-application requirements are not at play, is damaging in this instance? In the TCPA and the types of residential application they are talking about, bad engagement happens, but high-quality consultation and engagement happen too, and residents and other stakeholders get their say post-submission.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way one last time, and then I will make some progress.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am slightly taken aback by the supportive comment from the hon. Gentleman, but I very much welcome it. Before I make my main point, it may be helpful if I give hon. Members another example of the types of alternative consenting routes that may be considered more appropriate. We spoke about the Town and Country Planning Act and the Transport and Works Act regimes. Offshore generating stations are another good example. If they are wholly offshore, responsibility for electricity consent functions under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 may be more appropriately transferred to the Marine Management Organisation under section 12 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—again, rather than the NSIP regime. We will provide further detail, through guidance, about all the regimes that it will be considered appropriate to use in relation to this power. I gave hon. Members assurances on the fact that we will work across Government to prepare and publish policy that will provide clarity about the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project. As I said, we will also issue guidance that makes the process clear. However, I am more than happy, in response to the shadow Minister’s point, to write to the Committee to set out in more detail how we think this process will work. That will include responding to his specific point on proposed new section 35D—

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for that entirely reasonable question. It would certainly be our intention, in preparing and publishing policy, to provide clarity. As I said on the Secretary of State’s considerations when determining requests for redirection of a project, we would hope that guidance absolutely provides certainty and clarity. It will not help the Government’s objectives through the Bill if applicants and investors are not clear about how this process works. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s other point, about clarification of the timelines for how the process could be used, I recognise the concern, but I again remind him that it will be for the Secretary of State to make a decision only on whether an alternative consenting regime can be used. It will be through the normal processes of whatever consenting regime is used, if such a redirection is allowed, that a decision will be made on the material considerations at play in any given application; it will not be for the Secretary of State to decide. This is merely a power to allow, as I said, an applicant to redirect an application into an alternative consenting regime from the NSIP planning process through the Planning Act 2008. On that basis—