Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Expresses excitement about page 238 of the White Paper which announces a new hospital health campus in Harlow. He seeks confirmation on the timeline for the new hospital.

Questions the absence of a net zero test within the Bill and suggests it should be applied to all planning decisions. She asks for commitment from the Secretary of State.

Asks about additional devolved powers that councils will receive under the Bill to settle housing investment matters.

Raises the issue of fiscal responsibility and suggests more local authorities should have means of raising revenue in their own areas, without increasing taxes.

Inquires about working closely with metro Mayors on the transition to net zero as proposed by the decarbonisation summit. He asks if the Secretary of State has seen details from Mayor Tracy Brabin.

Follows up on devolution and transfer of powers to local authorities and Mayors, seeking specific clauses in the Bill that address this. He also questions if any additional powers currently not devolved will be included.

Argues against the transfer of powers from second-tier councils to combined authorities without their consent, suggesting it would undermine real devolution.

Thanks the Secretary of State for his visits and meetings on regeneration projects in Stoke-on-Trent. He highlights positive developments but also mentions blight from rogue landlords.

Expresses concern that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to overrule local plans without parliamentary approval, suggesting it undermines local democracy.

Proposes a suggestion for the Government to grab and give back to local authorities powers related to historic lawful development certificates in national parks, which currently overrule local authority control.

Raises concern that the Bill overrides local planning authorities and could destroy the balance established since 1947, where planning was devolved to local authorities.

Managed interventions and ensured debate continued smoothly.

Warned that Clause 83(2) overrides local plans in favour of national policy, which could undermine local control and planning autonomy.

Asked about how the Bill prevents developers from using viability arguments to reduce affordable housing provision, expressing concern over potential negative impacts on social and affordable housing.

Expressed concerns about developers not providing necessary infrastructure such as GP surgeries, citing the Rebuild Britain campaign’s views on medical facilities being a critical part of new developments.

Asked about timing of infrastructure levy payments, highlighting concerns over developers benefiting while local authorities struggle to fund upfront infrastructure needs.

Welcomed provisions on planning enforcement but asked for a reconsideration of his Planning (Enforcement) Bill to enhance powers against rogue developers.

Asked about ensuring water companies provide adequate drainage systems for new builds, supporting provisions aimed at improving infrastructure planning.

Asked for clarity on mechanisms to net off contradictory elements such as floodplain and green belt constraints, seeking a balance between national targets and local considerations.

Questioned whether residents’ views would be considered regarding proposed housing developments on green spaces, expressing concern over potential loss of beautiful green areas.

Asked for further detail about local authority arguments for constraints based on economic areas, suggesting opportunities to save local assets from closure due to housing targets.

Asked for clarification regarding neighbourhood planning when councils do not have up-to-date local plans, suggesting potential problems with sprawl in his constituency.

Expressed concerns about unrealistic housing targets for rural areas like the Isle of Wight, questioning whether the standard methodology and mutant algorithm provide realistic targets.

Asked if the Secretary of State would table amendments to give local authorities more control over planning, suggesting potential inconsistencies between rhetoric and legislation.

Questioned whether NHS Providers should be statutory consultees in developments to address infrastructure supply issues such as GP shortages.

Asked for reassurance regarding protection of urban green spaces, citing a specific case in Haughton Green where council decisions conflicted with promises.

Asked how the legislation would address housing affordability issues when councils are not building suitable tenure for residents.

Proposed an amendment allowing public sector-owned assets to be sold below market value where GP surgeries or social housing are needed, citing a local example in Teddington.

Critiqued the Secretary of State's performance and questioned the effectiveness of the Bill in addressing levelling up, highlighting discrepancies between rhetoric and legislative action.

Defended his constituency's progress under the Conservative Government, citing numerous investments and developments over the past decade. He emphasised that Harlow has been levelling up for 10 years with significant infrastructure projects.

Highlighted specific investments made in Stoke-on-Trent by the Conservative Government, including £56 million from the levelling-up fund and new jobs at the Home Office. He criticised Labour for past underinvestment.

Expressed disappointment that flood prevention measures have not been adequately addressed in the Bill. Emphasised the need for serious consideration of tackling flood prevention and mitigation to secure a strong future for Yorkshire and Hull.

Called out Emma Hardy's allegation as completely wrong, emphasising that the Prime Minister had committed to rectifying an issue with the Isle of Wight's multiplier and that no corruption was involved.

Urged Emma Hardy to withdraw her allegation of corruption as it is serious and should be addressed properly. She advised continuing the debate in a respectful manner.

Took exception to Emma Hardy's comments, expressing support for Government Members standing up for their communities against false allegations of corruption.

Challenged Emma Hardy's portrayal of doom and gloom, pointing out that unemployment in her constituency is 30% lower than when they took office in 2010.

Highlighted the poorly designed planning system and pressures on land and green spaces. He emphasised the need for a complete rethink of the imbalance in brownfield redevelopment.

Defended the Government's policies, citing successful applications to funds and criticising past Labour regional development agencies. He urged discussion on the Bill rather than past failures.

Welcomed measures in the Bill to speed up the planning process and introduced neighbourhood development orders. He emphasised the importance of consultation on national development management policies, expressing concerns about centralization.

Ms. Gibson criticises the lack of accountability in the Bill, suggesting that it enables the government to change targets if they are unmet. She also notes that there is insufficient financial backing for levelling up and points out a reduction in departmental budgets compared to 2010 levels as reported by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Additionally, she highlights discrepancies in funding distribution across constituencies, with wealthier areas receiving more funding than deprived ones.

Supports the Second Reading of the Bill, emphasising its proposals for strengthening the planning system. He highlights the current housing crisis, noting that only one in five people between 18 and 34 are homeowners with a mortgage compared to two-thirds in 1995. Bacon argues that the planning system rewards mediocrity, lacks consumer consideration, and does not ensure timely infrastructure improvements. He suggests creating conditions for customers to have more choices and power, noting research indicating that most people would prefer to build their own homes rather than buy new ones. Increasing consumer choice will assist in meeting climate change commitments.

Critiques the Bill for lacking fundamental measures such as a commitment to increased funding. He questions why spending on public transport is so unequal across regions and highlights that there are no new powers in the Bill available to councils or Mayors. Betts welcomes some simplifications of local plans but doubts whether these will truly address the issues of levelling up. He raises concerns about compulsory purchase orders, environmental impact assessments, enforcement by local authorities, and retrospective applications. He questions if the levy replacing section 106 agreements will reduce affordable homes being built.

He welcomed the change in tone from the Government but still seeks further improvements to the Bill. He argued that his constituency cannot meet housing targets based on the 2014 census data, advocating for a shift away from national targets imposed by inspectors and towards local authority input. Grayling also highlighted flaws in current methodology regarding commuting areas and proposed stricter parameters for planning inspectors to ensure they adhere to government policy. Additionally, he pushed for better environmental practices during development, urging developers to conduct ecological surveys before site clearance.

He agreed with strengthening nature conservation provisions but criticised the Government's levelling-up agenda, pointing out that his constituents have experienced a decline in living standards. He cited examples of public service cuts and food bank usage increases to illustrate these issues. Gwynne emphasised the importance of supporting local areas like his by addressing the Bill's measures more closely, particularly regarding school rebuilds to improve education infrastructure.

Fox highlighted variability in housing targets within North Somerset and argued for longer-term planning periods. He pointed out the need for local authorities to net off land restrictions like green belt, flood zones, and AONBs when setting realistic housing targets. Additionally, he discussed issues of land banking by developers and advocated for more flexibility with small-scale developments of 30-40 houses to introduce competition into the market.

Critiques the Bill for being unambitious and not addressing rural housing crises adequately. Argues for local authorities to have power over second home ownership, affordability enforcement, and sustainable building practices. Raises concerns about planning conditions not being enforceable due to lack of resources and highlights funding biases against rural areas.

Welcomes some aspects but criticises the Bill for failing to curb Planning Inspectorate powers, lacking protections for greenfield sites, and not reducing housing targets which undermine local control over planning. Argues that national-level development management policies override local plans, weakening democratic decision-making and risking overdevelopment.

Mr. Byrne supports devolution of power to local regions, arguing that centralisation hinders social mobility. He proposes consolidating 149 different local spending programmes into block grants for local areas and creating full-time regional Ministers and Select Committees. He highlights the economic potential in East Birmingham and calls for a devolution deal focused on multi-year public funding, tax increment financing, net zero powers, and enhanced transport packages.

Mr. Seely criticises the Labour party's approach to devolution, asserting that it is not delivering for constituents. He supports change in the current system but argues against developers profiteering without giving back to communities.

Ms. Wilson interjects, supporting Mr. Seely's points but adds that developers should not be allowed to hold onto greenfield sites indefinitely, even after legal challenges.

Ms. Maskell argues that the Bill fails to level up power between communities and vested interests, suggesting it does not provide a framework to shift entrenched planning injustices. She calls for social housing at the heart of development and criticises developers like Persimmon for making large profits without contributing sufficiently.

Ms Baillie supports scrapping housing targets and making them advisory to clarify responsibility. She emphasises the need for upfront infrastructure plans to prevent chaos in areas like Stroud facing thousands of new homes without adequate support. She welcomes efforts to address dilapidated buildings but seeks more action on land banking and permissions that have not led to home construction. Ms Baillie also calls for mandating developers to future-proof housing against environmental issues.

Mr Lavery questions the meaning of 'levelling up' and argues it should focus on addressing poverty, employment opportunities, education, health outcomes, and life expectancy in left-behind communities. He invites the Secretary of State to visit his constituency to witness the need for investment in towns like Ashington and Bedlington, highlighting issues such as poor living conditions, lack of leisure facilities, and inadequate public transport.

Mr Redwood criticises the abuse of the planning system by large development companies and calls for clearer direction to stop such practices. He emphasises the importance of local community involvement in defining housing need and numbers, stressing that infrastructure must be adequately provided before new homes are built to avoid inviting people into unprepared communities.

The Bill undermines devolution in Wales by intruding on health, education and housing areas, bypassing Senedd. It raises concerns about how levelling-up metrics will be monitored and whether they account for distinct Welsh economic and development structures. Williams calls for more research and development funding to be devolved to Wales, as well as greater borrowing powers for the Welsh Government.

Welcomes new powers for local leaders in high street rental auctions and al fresco dining. Highlights major investment plans for Stoke-on-Trent, including public transport improvements and regeneration projects like Etruscan Square and the goods yard project. Emphasises the importance of addressing health and education inequalities to ensure residents have opportunities equal to those in more affluent areas.

Critiques the Government’s cuts to council funding, noting that Sheffield City Council has seen its central government grant cut by over £3 billion since 2010. Raises concerns about inflation-driven cost of living pressures and slashed universal credit benefits. Argues for revisiting budget cuts as they exacerbate poverty cycles and limit levelling-up efforts.

Mr. Hudson highlights the importance of transport access in levelling up rural areas, noting that Cumbria's lack of central Government funding for commercial bus services has led to reduced services and impacted education opportunities for students. He provides specific examples from schools in his constituency where pupils are discouraged from advancing their education due to inadequate transport facilities. Additionally, he calls for improved broadband and mobile phone coverage, local government restructuring that enhances decision-making in isolated communities, affordable housing, and equality of access to healthcare services.

Ms. Greenwood criticises the lack of funding for public services since 2010 and highlights devastating impacts on libraries, leisure centres, educational progression, poverty levels, climate crisis responses, and environmental protections. She argues that the Bill fails to address crucial issues such as food insecurity, adult literacy skills, energy exploration policies like fracking, and protection for green belts.

Mr. Graham supports aspects of the Bill that focus on levelling up, democracy, and devolution but raises concerns about potential unintended consequences in local government restructuring, specifically regarding powers transferred from district councils to combined county authorities without consent.

Critiques the Bill for not addressing the housing crisis in Sheffield and across the UK, citing statistics on homelessness, rental prices, and social home loss. Emphasises the need for affordable social homes to 'level up' communities.

Intervened briefly to ask Olivia Blake if she would like to finish her speech, showing support for the Bill by maintaining order and allowing speeches to continue.

Welcomes the Bill's measures to stimulate growth and deliver infrastructure in Guildford. Addresses concerns about greenfield protection and air pollution, advocating for investment and levelling up.

Critiques the Bill's lack of ambition on housing issues. Advocates for ending the right-to-buy policy to address social housing shortages, citing examples from his constituency.

He emphasised that when new homes are built, there must be a corresponding increase in GP practice capacity. He cited insufficient funding of £2,600 per GP practice and the lack of statutory requirements for local authorities to provide health services. He urged the Minister to take this issue seriously.

Ms. Beth Winter criticised the Bill's failure to deliver on its promises of investment and empowerment for local communities, especially in Wales. She highlighted how the cost-of-living crisis is affecting her constituents significantly and pointed out that the Welsh Government has not been adequately consulted or involved in the development of the Bill. She argued that the UK Government’s levelling-up programme will make the Welsh budget nearly £1 billion worse off by 2024.

Mr. Greg Smith welcomed certain aspects of the Bill, such as the ending of zoning proposals and support for community involvement in planning processes. However, he highlighted concerns about development targets and the loss of agricultural land due to solar farms and other developments. He also asked for clarity on the Government's stance regarding the Oxford to Cambridge arc.

Welcomes the Bill's aim to close gaps in productivity and opportunity, focuses on improving the planning system for housing needs. Raises issues about housing supply constraints due to environmental protection and the need for better use of existing properties, calls for levelling up VAT regime to encourage refurbishment, wants more funding for brownfield sites.

Supports Government's focus on helping people own homes and improving infrastructure. Criticises current system for low-quality, unaffordable housing and environmental strain. Welcomes measures in the Bill to stress importance of local plans, challenge anti-competitive practices, move away from zonal system, digitize planning process, and improve environmental standards.

Supports Government’s commitment to levelling up but urges Minister to prioritise job growth and productivity in Gosport. Raises concerns about unrealistic housing targets, nitrate issues delaying developments, and Valuation Office Agency's interpretation of local government finance law affecting HMOs.

Welcomes the Bill but raises concerns about targets, local plans, London's economic importance, poverty levels, devolution, financial autonomy for communities, and the role of arts in levelling up. Emphasises need for a brownfield-first policy and proper devolution.

Supports the Bill as it addresses overdevelopment, strengthens local plans, introduces mandatory local design codes, reforms developer payments to ensure they pay their fair share, and abolishes the duty to cooperate which has been abused by councils.

Welcomes parts of the Bill but raises concerns about housing targets, infrastructure funding in Greater London, the Mayor of London's policies, and the risk of replicating London’s problems across the country. Advocates for better protections against overdevelopment.

Expressed concerns about the bill's ability to tackle structural inequalities in London and other regions. Highlighted issues such as affordable housing, devolved powers, and developers' influence on local policies.

Agreed with Marsha de Cordova's concerns about the Bill’s lack of detail on affordability issues impacting homelessness.

Supported the Bill, emphasising its importance in improving people’s lives and closing economic gaps. Advocated for devolution of powers to local authorities and private sector investment.

Commended the bill's ambitions but raised concerns about its practical implementation, especially in rural areas. Emphasised the need for genuine devolution of power with funding and reduction of bureaucratic constraints.

Supports the Government's focus on levelling up in Stoke-on-Trent, highlighting £56 million from the levelling-up fund and more than £70 million in transport improvements. Mentions that a third of households have no private car access, making public transport crucial for employment opportunities. Welcomes proposals to reopen Meir station. Emphasises the importance of better-skilled and better-paid employment given cost-of-living challenges. Supports new powers on compulsory purchase orders and auctions for empty properties over 12 months old, especially important for heritage sites. Acknowledges progress in digital connectivity but calls for more opportunities to develop industries like gaming and creative sectors.

[INTERVENTION] Agrees with Brereton, emphasising the need to talk up the city's opportunities and highlighting the success of a recent jobs and skills fair.

Welcomes the Bill, focusing on necessary planning reforms such as an infrastructure levy to ensure developers contribute to local services and investment. Supports measures for addressing empty units through auctions, protecting greenbelt areas, and recovering costs from landowners of listed buildings that have become hazardous eyesores.

Supports much of the Bill but highlights housing issues in rural and coastal constituencies, noting an imbalance due to short-term holiday lets and second home ownership. Points out affordability issues and a growing demand for social housing. Emphasises the need for additional planning measures to address vacant and second homes.

Nicholas Fletcher supports the Bill, emphasising its importance for levelling up Doncaster. He highlights that city status has brought attention to his constituency and is necessary to address issues such as crime and antisocial behaviour in Edlington. Fletcher outlines a plan involving community engagement, removal of criminals, and proper exercise of devolved powers with support from local authorities. He urges the Government to provide funding and resources for future levelling-up rounds.

Derek Thomas supports the Bill, focusing on housing needs in Cornwall. He calls for local authorities to have the power to restrict new homes to permanent residents and prioritise affordable housing that meets local needs. Thomas also advocates for reforms in mortgage applications to consider high rental payments and introduces healthy home principles which include space, access to natural light, and proximity to good transport links.

Miriam Cates supports the Bill, emphasising its potential to improve housing affordability and infrastructure in her constituency. She highlights the north-south divide and advocates for measures like the levelling-up fund, Skills and Post-16 Education Act, and Restoring Your Railways project to address economic disparities. Cates also mentions issues such as poor-quality housing leading to poverty and overcrowding, and supports simplifying neighbourhood planning processes. However, she raises concerns about the infrastructure levy funding for schools and calls for further measures to tackle family breakdown contributing to increased demand for housing.

Nickie Aiken supports the Bill but raises concerns about specific clauses. She notes that communities understand their local needs better than Parliament or developers and welcomes completion notes in planning reforms. Aiken is concerned about clause 184's provision for permanent pavement licences, suggesting it may not fit all areas equally well. She also expresses reservations about secondary legislation measures, especially street votes, and asks for a meaningful consultation period before changes to planning rules are implemented. Additionally, she questions the inclusion of vagrancy provisions in the Bill.

Supports the Bill's changes to planning enforcement and local plans but raises concerns about the duty to cooperate, which hindered her local area. Advocates for democratic accountability in planning decisions and stresses the importance of protecting green belt areas from excessive development.

Supports swift progress on the Bill to enable devolution and empower local leadership, highlighting the east midlands' need for devolved powers. Stresses the importance of timely implementation and adequate funding from the Treasury to facilitate regional development plans.

Supports the Bill as it aims to reverse geographical disparity and spread opportunity. Emphasises the unique challenges faced by coastal communities, including housing issues. Highlights Southend's economic contributions (£3 billion annually from 7 million visitors). Advocates for prioritising projects such as the Music Man Project in levelling-up funding.

Agrees with Anna Firth's point about coastal communities, arguing that post-Brexit funding should be equivalent to EU structural funds. Urges the UK Government to compensate for any losses caused by Brexit.

Welcomes the Bill, focusing on its 12 missions. Discusses local transport issues and educational opportunities in Burnley and Padiham. Supports Lancashire County Council's levelling-up fund bid which includes active travel zones and living neighbourhoods. Emphasises the importance of planning reform to give more weight to parish councils' views.

Supports the Bill for its potential to help neglected communities like Holyhead. Highlights the need to restore pride in town centres through cultural and heritage projects. Mentions successful funding bids for local micro-businesses, Welsh language promotion, and a bid for £20 million to regenerate Holyhead's port heritage.

Alex Norris argued that the bill falls short of addressing regional inequalities and immediate cost-of-living challenges, emphasising a need for more funding and devolution of powers. He highlighted concerns over cuts to local authorities and stressed the importance of decent housing. Norris also criticised the government's approach to levelling up as being out of touch with reality.

[Intervention]: Antony Higginbotham argued that previous Labour governments were responsible for issues such as closing A&E departments and imposing PFI contracts on schools, suggesting a lack of answers from the opposition.

[Intervention]: Clive Betts raised concerns about local democracy and the conflict between local plans and national policies, questioning how a locally consulted plan can be overridden by later changes in national policy.

Inquired about how the Government plans to use the missions set out in the Bill to reduce inequalities, referencing Labour's approach of using floor targets in neighbourhood renewal funds.

Asked the Minister to assure that debates and discussions around complicated planning elements would not delay other well-supported aspects of the Bill such as devolution, locally-led development corporations.

Highlighted the challenge councils face in interpreting and implementing housing targets, urging the Minister to ensure clear communication about what is expected of them during the Bill's passage.

Asked for assurance that Stockport, a tightly constrained borough surrounded by green belt, would be supported in developing a local plan that meets its needs without sacrificing the green belt.

Asked the Minister to look at introducing an amendment addressing the issue of Airbnb rentals, which are taking out existing stock and dominating new builds.

Proposed an amendment to categorize second home ownership as a separate planning category, similar to the suggestion made by Rachael Maskell.

Asked the Minister to consider using a better method for capturing increase in land value, specifically the gross added value method.

Asked the Minister to reassure that there is no intention to devolve upwards and that district councils' powers will remain intact.

Inquired about the publication of an impact assessment, as previously raised by Alex Norris.

Asked for reassurance that there is no intention to devolve upwards and inquired about the impact of previous central government measures on leaseholders.