← Back to House of Commons Debates
Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025-11-13
13 November 2025
Lead MP
The Minister for Housing and Planning
Debate Type
Ministerial Statement
Tags
EconomyClimate
Other Contributors: 45
At a Glance
The Minister for Housing and Planning raised concerns about planning and infrastructure bill 2025-11-13 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Government Statement
Today, I am moving the House to disagree with several Lords amendments concerning the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. The Bill aims to speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure in England, aligning with the Government's mission to deliver economic growth and improved living standards for working people. It includes measures that could unlock £7.5 billion worth of economic benefits over the next 10 years, as well as changes to remove statutory requirements for consultation during pre-application stages for nationally significant infrastructure projects, potentially saving over £1 billion in costs. The Bill also introduces safeguards and clarifications related to environmental protection funds and nature restoration. However, most Lords amendments seek to undermine these core principles, so the Government cannot accept them. I provide assurances that Parliament retains ultimate control over changes via a 21-day layover period and commitments to ensure transparency and accountability.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Question
The housing market is flat, and we need more building. What is preventing new construction? Is the stamp duty tax a major deterrent?
Minister reply
I am sticking to the Bill’s contents rather than addressing broader issues like stamp duty. The Chancellor will decide on Budget changes soon.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
Question
Doesn’t Lords amendment 1 reduce opportunities for proper scrutiny of major infrastructure projects, such as HS2 or Heathrow's third runway?
Minister reply
The clause aims to ensure proportionate scrutiny. Select Committees will still have the opportunity to feed their views into Government decisions.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab/Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Question
The Minister is taking an approach of making guidance non-statutory, which seems to contradict the Government’s direction towards speeding up national scheme of delegation. Can he explain why this approach is being taken?
Minister reply
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management and will consult on those before the end of the year. The sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure.
Greg Smith
Con
Mid Buckinghamshire
Question
The Minister mentioned the Government's brownfield-first approach to development. Given that enough brownfield land in England alone is identified for 1.4 million homes, why do the Government persist in rejecting Lords amendments on this matter against the advice of respected independent charities like the Campaign to Protect Rural England?
Minister reply
I respectfully disagree with the CPRE and other similar views. There is not enough viable brownfield land that is in the right location to meet housing need across England, which is why we have a 'brownfield-first' approach but also consider new developments where necessary.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham and Chislehurst
Question
Can the Minister confirm that proposals will include protections for sports grounds?
Minister reply
Such protections are already in place under the national planning policy framework. There is nothing in the Bill specifically targeting the release of sports fields for development.
Jon Trickett
Lab
Normanton and Hemsworth
Question
Does biodiversity have to be a central plank of the Government’s intentions?
Minister reply
The Government are clear that meeting development targets need not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 facilitates win-win outcomes for nature and the economy.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
Question
Why do developments with planning permission not get built?
Minister reply
The context includes a significant reduction in housing starts and completions, reflecting economic challenges rather than solely regulatory issues.
Gideon Amos
LD
Taunton and Wellington
Question
Would a 'use it or lose it' planning permission solve the issue?
Minister reply
The Minister did not directly respond to this question but acknowledged its relevance.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Question
Is not the principal difficulty that so many housing developments have now become unprofitable, and that is why they are not being proceeded with? It is the costs that have been loaded on builders in the last 15 months.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab/Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Question
I welcome the changes that the Government have made in the other place, and the work of Ministers to reach a compromise to get the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I particularly welcome the series of pragmatic Government amendments on environmental delivery plans.
Chris Vince
Lab/Co-op
Harlow
Question
Does she hope that the Bill, and the fast tracking of social and affordable housing that she talks of, will help to tackle that issue and bring down bills for local councils?
Minister reply
This is about ensuring that our councils are part of the building process, and the new social and affordable homes package—the £39 billion—will help ensure we build those homes.
Question
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to district-level licensing schemes for great crested newts as an example of where a strategic approach can benefit a species population?
Minister reply
I accept what the Minister is saying and that elements of species protection may require strategic approaches, but the fundamental point for the Liberal Democrats is that if the Government made a commitment to stronger protections within EDPs from the outset, in terms of the mitigation hierarchy and the protection of species on site, then we would be more open to supporting their position.
West Dorset
Question
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that a system similar to the Blue Flag status could provide environmental protections for our chalk streams?
Minister reply
I agree with my hon. Friend, who does an excellent job championing the chalk streams in his constituency. A public-facing recognised standard for chalk streams similar to those we have for other environmental designations would be incredibly welcome.
Ely and East Cambridgeshire
Question
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to give these chalk streams statutory protection through measures such as those set out in Lords amendment 38?
Minister reply
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Proper statutory protection for the internationally valuable resource that is our chalk streams is long overdue.
Poole
Question
I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report. Does he urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments?
Minister reply
The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. However, it may not be suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species.
Mike Reader
Lab
Northampton South
Question
Does he agree that Lords amendment 40 makes it even more complicated for people to build the homes we desperately need?
Minister reply
We have to find the correct balance between building the houses we so desperately need and protecting our vulnerable nature and habitats we want to preserve.
Question
My hon. Friend is right that there are examples of where species should not be able to be moved, but Lords amendment 40 does not relate to some cases but to all cases, and it sets out in statute that species should never be moved. Does he agree that the Government’s approach, which will prevent species from being moved in many cases, is better than setting in statute something that could block so many opportunities?
Question
I was about to come to that very point, and how serious people feel this issue is. The Wildlife Trusts have nearly 1 million members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members, and the National Trust has more than 5 million members. There is a massive base of people in this country who care deeply about nature. If we get this wrong, the risk is not just environmental, but political.
Alex Brewer
LD
North East Hampshire
Question
As I am sure the hon. Member knows, chalk streams are among the rarest habitats in the world. This is not the first time I have mentioned them in this Chamber. Only 11 of the more than 200 chalk streams are protected, and even those 11 are in decline. The problems are over-abstraction, significant pollution and inappropriate development caused by poor planning. Does he agree that protecting these habitats through this Bill is essential, not optional?
David Mundell
Con
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
Question
I will speak to Lords amendment 28, which was introduced in the other place but relates specifically to my constituency. The Eskdalemuir seismic array, which is near the village of Eskdalemuir in my constituency, is a seismological monitoring station established to detect seismic signals from nuclear explosions.
Question
The specific concerns or questions raised by the MP. Include their concern, local impact, or criticism.
John McDonnell
Lab
Hayes and Harlington
Question
Those who are watching this debate might think that we are just debating tedious parliamentary processes, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) made clear, national policy statements have impacts. We are about to consider—in some detail, I hope—the national policy statement on airports, which would result in 15,000 people in my constituency losing their home, and whole communities being wiped off the face of the earth. That is why it is so critical that we get this procedure right; otherwise, we will not carry the community with us.
Question
I think I can reassure my right hon. Friend that, as the Minister has made clear at the Dispatch Box, very large changes would go through the old process. There is no watering down of that, which is absolutely right and proper; the Government are leaning in the right direction on that. Our concern was about turning smaller amendments into reflective amendments. The Minister outlined four categories of amendment; when he sums up, I would be grateful if he could clarify who decides which of the four categories an amendment would be in, and whether there is any prospect that the process could be misused by a future Government.
Kit Malthouse
Con
North West Hampshire
Question
The first is Lords amendment 38, which deals with chalk streams. As the Minister knows, because I have told him before, my constituency is chalk stream central—as is yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my constituency neighbour. The River Test, the most celebrated of chalk streams, rises in the north of my constituency.
Sarah Green
LD
Chesham and Amersham
Question
The right hon. Member will know from his own constituency that there are some fantastic campaigners trying to protect chalk streams. In my patch, I have the River Chess Association, the Mend the Misbourne project, and the Chiltern Society. Does he agree that it should not be down to committed campaigners to protect these chalk streams, and that it needs a statutory underpinning?
Jeremy Corbyn
Ind
Islington North
Question
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member and support everything he has said about chalk streams and nature corridors. Does he think it would be helpful if the Bill went a bit further in trying to reinvigorate the natural world in densely populated urban areas? Since he has an enormous knowledge of London, does he not think that London would be so much improved if some of the unfortunately now underground rivers could be opened up, so as to give people a sense of what their natural world is really like?
Basingstoke and Deane
Question
Expressed concern about the impact of new housing targets on neighbourhood plans, questioning whether existing plans need to be varied due to increased targets.
Roz Savage
LD
South Cotswolds
Question
Asked if the Government was opposing Lords amendment 39 that would prioritise brownfield sites for development, citing local impacts in her constituency due to new housing targets.
Question
Stressed the need for compromise with communities on planning matters and urged consideration of undeveloped consents in future reforms.
Terry Jermy
Lab
South West Norfolk
Question
Highlighted environmental concerns about chalk streams, including the River Nar, emphasising the need for legislation to protect these globally rare habitats permanently.
Perkins
Conservative Party
Question
Building 1.5 million homes to tackle the housing crisis at the same time as protecting British wildlife is an issue that the general public are rightly passionate about, and one that Government must get right for people, for nature and for the economy... The Bill has been significantly improved during its passage, and my original concerns about part 3—which were shared by many others—have been allayed. I have been through enough debates on legislation in this Chamber where people have accused Ministers of not listening to give credit to my hon. Friend the Housing Minister for having listened to criticisms and skilfully clarified how the Government will respond...
Liz Jarvis
Liberal Democrat Party
Eastleigh
Question
I will focus my comments on Lords amendment 38. I have heard from many constituents who are deeply concerned about the potential environmental impact of this Bill and how it might affect the River Itchen, the precious chalk stream that runs through my constituency of Eastleigh... According to the 2024-25 chalk stream annual review, 83% of England’s chalk streams are failing to achieve good ecological status, which is disgraceful. That is why Lords amendment 38 is so important to my constituents and to communities across the country who live alongside these extraordinary habitats.
Chris Hinchliff
Lab
North East Hertfordshire
Question
First, given the need for legal certainty, can the Minister confirm that the overall improvement test will guarantee that irreplaceable habitats and species cannot be covered by EDPs, and if so, will the Government set out a list of environmental features that they consider would be irreplaceable?
Minister reply
The minister's response to this specific MP is not provided in the given text.
Chris Hinchliff
Lab
North East Hertfordshire
Question
Secondly, can the Minister confirm whether any EDPs are currently under consideration or development by Natural England, or proposed by the Government? If so, will any of them be affected if Lords amendment 40 remained part of the Bill?
Minister reply
The minister's response to this specific MP is not provided in the given text.
Chris Hinchliff
Lab
North East Hertfordshire
Question
Fourthly, given that the ‘Catchment Based Approach’ annual review published this autumn found that a third of chalk streams do not have a healthy flow regime, that over-abstraction due to development pressures is one of the main threats facing these crown jewels of our natural heritage and that there are currently no planning policies specifically protecting chalk streams, can the Minister set out in more detail how the Government foresee planning authorities being able to direct inappropriate development away from struggling chalk streams within the process of setting spatial development strategy plans, and would he consider opportunities for this through regulation, if not through the Bill?
Minister reply
The minister's response to this specific MP is not provided in the given text.
Ellie Chowns
Green
North Herefordshire
Question
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the Minister’s claim that this is a win-win for nature and housing, and express my continued concern that the Bill, especially part 3, has not had the full reconsideration it needs to ensure we have a genuine win-win. The reason, unfortunately, is that the Government seem to be stuck in the view that there is a zero-sum game between nature protection and house building.
Minister reply
The minister's response to this specific MP is not provided in the given text.
Mike Reader
Lab
Northampton South
Question
In light of the recent storms affecting my constituency, what measures will be taken to address the immediate housing shortages caused by displaced residents?
Minister reply
We recognise the urgent need for temporary accommodation and are working closely with local authorities to provide emergency shelter. Additionally, we have committed to accelerating housing development on brownfield sites to help alleviate long-term pressures on housing supply.
Poole
Question
Can you explain how the new framework for Environmental Delivery Plans will ensure that developers do not abuse their 'get out of jail free' card?
Minister reply
The new EDPs will be carefully tailored to specific sites where environmental benefits can be maximised, ensuring a targeted and effective approach. We are also introducing robust safeguards to prevent abuse, including strict monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.
John Milne MP
Lib Dem
Horsham
Question
Expressed concern over the negative environmental impacts of the legislation, particularly in his constituency where water neutrality rules have constrained housing development. He urged the Minister to support Lords amendment 40 to balance development and environmental protections.
Northampton South
Question
Asked for a fifth C: confidence, emphasising the need to instil public confidence in Government policies. He highlighted that Members who raised concerns and moved amendments often lost the Whip, only to have similar provisions adopted later by the Government. The Minister conceded that compromises had been reached on clause 3 but expressed concern over Lords amendment 40.
Ruth Cadbury
Lab
Brentford and Isleworth
Question
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), a fellow Transport Committee member, welcomes the many changes that the Government will make to the planning system as a result of the Bill. She raises concerns about the new procedure introduced in clause 2 which applies to amendments to national policy statements.
Minister reply
In response to my intervention on the Minister earlier, he assured me that despite the significant changes and the new national policy statements, the existing process of parliamentary scrutiny—including a role for this Chamber and the Committees—will continue.
North Norfolk
Question
I am pleased to speak today in full support of Lords amendments 38 and 40. I would also like to take the opportunity to press the Minister on the Government’s response in the other place to Lords amendment 32, which I will come to shortly.
Minister reply
The Minister has given us some assurances, and we will see how that works out in practice, but we interfere with that democratic process of this House at our peril when we are in government, because this is how mistakes get made.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Question
The right hon. and learned Member pointed out a drafting error in the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act reference and suggested improving data collection for disability access to charging infrastructure.
Minister reply
I will correct the drafting error as mentioned. I am willing to consider further reflection on data collection points, given that our proposed amendment allows opportunities for feedback through regulations.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
Question
Given the unique importance of chalk streams, why have the Government not yet brought forward an amendment reflecting cross-party concerns in both Houses?
Minister reply
I am committed to including explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated in proposed changes to national planning policy through a consultation before the end of this year. While the current protections are robust, placing these within policy rather than statute allows for necessary updates and improvements.
Question
Will the protection given to chalk streams in planning guidance be at the same level as that given to veteran trees?
Minister reply
The national planning policy framework already makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. The current protections for such habitats remain intact.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.