Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025-06-09

Question

The Minister mentioned that new clauses would enhance protection for the environment. Can he provide more details on how these new measures will ensure effective implementation?

Question

Clause 3 talks about compulsory purchase of unused development lands. Could you explain how this might affect local economies and homeowners?

Question

Could the Secretary of State outline how these new clauses will prevent developers from circumventing local consultations?

Question

The Labour Party is deeply concerned about the potential impact of these new clauses on local communities. Can you assure us that they will not weaken existing protections?

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Question

Will the minister confirm that these new clauses will not undermine existing protections for high-quality agricultural land?

Question

Can the minister explain how these new clauses will specifically benefit communities in deprived areas?

Question

How does the government plan to ensure these new regulations are enforced effectively?

Question

The MP's question or point. Include their concern, local impact, or criticism.

Question

The MP's question or point. Include their concern, local impact, or criticism.

Question

The MP's question or point. Include their concern, local impact, or criticism.

Question

When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true. In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used for food production.

Question

This relates directly to the Bill. Under current proposals, vast swathes of prime agricultural land could be lost because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through.

Question

Many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. Will he listen to representations from people who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat?

Question

My inbox is full of correspondence from Harlow residents who cannot get a home. The main purpose of the Bill is to speed up that process and build people the homes they need.

Question

My constituency of Bournemouth West has some unique heathland habitats that hold deep value for the local community. Can you reassure me these will be protected under this Bill?

Question

Does he accept that many concerns were raised in Committee about Natural England's ability to undertake its duties and that he was unable to give an answer about the extra funding needed?

Question

Would he use the phrase 'spurious criticism' to dismiss expert criticism from the Office for Environmental Protection?

Question

Why does he repeatedly accuse environmental groups of making spurious remarks when they have significant concerns about the Bill?

Question

Asked Paul Holmes to reflect on his party’s opposition to proposals for a different category of planning use for short-term lets and second homes, which ravages communities such as his. He questioned whether the Labour Party would change its stance.

Question

Agreed with Paul Holmes that constituents expect to have their voice heard on a local planning committee, provided councils are well-trained.

Question

Commented from a sedentary position, questioning whether local planning systems are functioning well.

Question

Asked Paul Holmes about any sense of change needed in the system given the housing crisis and environmental issues under previous administrations.

Question

I chair the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, which is concerned that there are 6.3 million properties currently at risk of flooding—a figure that is forecast to rise to 8 million by 2050 because of climate change. However, the Bill does not really address climate change or any kind of flood resilience. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and others that deal with building properties in areas that are at risk of flooding and lack flood resilience?

Question

Does the hon. Member recognise that only up to 1% of agricultural land could actually be dedicated to solar panels? Does he also recognise that a former president of the National Farmers Union has said that solar helps farmers to generate income?

Question

Does the hon. Member believe that farmers are able to choose how best to use their land?

Question

She outlines the housing crisis, highlighting the urgent need for reform in the planning system to address unaffordable rents, social housing waiting lists, temporary accommodation conditions, and developer obligations. She mentions the deaths of 74 children due to inadequate temporary accommodation over five years.

Question

Asks Florence Eshalomi if she was surprised by the shadow Minister's view that the planning system is fine and should not change.

Question

Questions whether developers should stick to their commitments on affordable homes when they apply for planning permission, suggesting that viability or profitability issues should not reduce the number of affordable homes.

Question

Asks Florence Eshalomi if she thinks we should have a target for social homes in the Bill.

Question

Supports the need to set clear targets now to reach the target of 90,000 social homes a year.

Question

Asks whether setting a target for 150,000 social homes is more realistic than the current proposal of 90,000.

Question

As we see species becoming extinct before our eyes, people want to see new homes and nature thrive together. Crucially, our new clause 1 would put back the pre-eminent principle in all this: wherever possible, we must first do no harm to the environment on the sites that are being impacted.

Question

Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with the Bill is misdiagnosis? The problem is not nature holding up house building, or local authorities—which have been starved of cash for the last 15 years—holding up housing, but developers that are sitting on 1.4 million homes with planning permission, because they are land banking and profiteering. That is the problem that the Bill is not getting to. We do not have to destroy nature, and we do not have to undermine our future environmental protections.

Question

While I welcome what the Government have said about bringing those forward, a real “use it or lose it” power is missing from the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 3 so that, unless those homes are built, the local authority would have powers to take over the land and to build the houses. That would ensure a real “use it or lose it” penalty for those that do not build out the permissions that they have.

Question

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as it sounds as though he is coming to his conclusion, but I want to give him the best possible chance to talk about new clause 115. My constituency of Surrey Heath is made up of small villages divided by green-belt land and Ministry of Defence property. Without the protections afforded by new clause 115, I fear that the distinctiveness and sense of place of those villages will be gradually lost. Can he comment on how new clause 115 would protect the distinctiveness of place?

Question

I rise to set out the case for amendments 136 and 150 and new clause 62, in my name. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far. The Bill would tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deliver the ambitious house building targets to which the Government are rightly committed, while protecting the environment and enhancing, not reducing, protections for nature.

Question

It sounds as though the hon. Member, like me, has a deep passion for ensuring that we maintain nature, so does he agree that a simple measure would be to accept new clause 30, which would extend permitted development rights for ponds of up to 0.2 hectares, providing vital freshwater habitats for up to two thirds of all freshwater species, exactly as he has been saying?

Question

Given the really important points that the hon. Lady is making about the environment and how it is so strongly connected to our economy and public health, does she agree with me—I appreciate that this is on a slight tangent, but she will see where it is going—that the planning rules for big digital billboards, which themselves can emit 11 homes-worth of energy, not to mention the light pollution that seriously affects nature and human health, are illogical and inconsistent?

Question

I rise to speak to new clause 59, in my name, which considers the impact of our planning system on our creative and cultural industries and infrastructure... [rest of speech]

Question

I rise to speak to amendment 87, in my name and the names of most Select Committee Chairs—certainly most of those who cover Departments—including the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee... [rest of speech]

Question

The Government are proposing to introduce what they call a new “reflective amendment” procedure where an amendment to planning policy reflects new legislation, changes to Government policy or a relevant court decision since the policy guidance was put in place. We need reassurances from the Minister as to how this will be managed.

Question

The Government may wish to change NPSs in the light of legal judgments, but does she agree that changes to them for policy reasons should continue to come before the House?

Question

Amendment 148 relates to housing targets. It proposes allowing local authorities to adopt targets that reduce housing need, rather than simply targets to build homes.

Question

The hon. Member is talking about chalk streams, which are the rainforests of the UK. A chalk stream in my constituency has had over 4,000 hours of non-stop sewage, and it sounds like the River Pang has been a victim of something similar. Amendment 16 is so important to protect our chalk streams, and local people say to me, as development comes, that this is actually groundwater. Would she support amendment 16?

Question

New clause 74 is very simple. It seeks to ensure that promises made to all of us as MPs by prospective developers when considering applications for large-scale housing developments are honoured.

Question

Many of us will have had similar experiences. We have been hearing so much about the importance of local decision making. I cannot help but think if only there had been the necessary investment in skills in the planning team who made the decision and determination, and that they had had a planning committee behind them who, by all accounts, could have said, “You need to bring the application back in.” Does he agree that we need to invest in local planning teams so that they can resist such totally inappropriate applications from developers?

Question

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Liberal Democrats that, given the unreliability of section 106 agreements and developers living up to them, as he demonstrated, the best way to get affordable homes for his constituents and mine is through an increased amount of social housing delivered by the local council?

Question

May we please start by acknowledging something that still has not been acknowledged enough: the current planning system is broken. Nowhere is that clearer than in our environmental and habitats regulation, which part 3 of the Bill is hoping to fix, and which many amendments—amendment 69 in particular—would make significantly worse.

Question

When I was building the second runway at Manchester airport, I faced similar issues with wildlife protection. There has to be a balanced solution that does not cost excessive amounts while allowing developments such as swift bricks in housing.

Question

The Minister has been resistant to amendments aimed at delivering affordable homes, preventing land banking of consented sites, ensuring oversight for NSIPs, and raising environmental standards in new homes. These changes are crucial for local infrastructure development and should be considered.

Question

I support the Planning and Infrastructure Bill because it will build high-quality housing and deliver critical energy infrastructure. However, we should also prioritise play opportunities for children through a statutory duty in England.

Question

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). That was an important speech and I concur entirely with his priority there...

Question

The Bill before the House has the potential to be one of the most pro-growth pieces of legislation passed by this place for decades and to transform our country for the better, but the amendments proposed will blunt its impact...

Question

Does the hon. Member agree that the amendment would lead to more delays in the system and more viability problems leading to fewer social homes being built?

Question

Will the hon. Member criticise his Government for reducing housing targets in London which have made it harder for the Mayor of London?

Question

Does my hon. Friend agree with adopting a truly brownfield-first approach?

Question

Does the hon. Member agree that new clause 44 can be easily accepted because it enables an existing piece of legislation?

Question

I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on local nature recovery. When the Government first introduced this Bill, they branded it a win-win... We Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy childhood for all children includes homes that are energy-efficient and warm, not cold and damp...

Question

Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the Government are not receptive to amendments to part 3 that would restore the mitigation hierarchy and protection for irreplaceable species and ancient woodland?

Question

I rise to speak as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and in support of new clause 50. For too long, affordable housing has become a catch-all term that means anything but... We must equip councils and delivery partners with the resources, planning powers and clarity of mission that they need...

Question

I will be brief as many colleagues are waiting to contribute. I will speak only to new clause 40, which calls for a review of the standard method of assessing local housing need... A couple of colleagues have already mentioned aspects of it, but I will talk about it for three reasons: it puts too many housing development requirements on rural areas, rather than cities; in areas like mine there are physical constraints, such as national parks, which can cause difficulties...

Question

I wish to focus on the protection of villages in Mid Buckinghamshire. Villages like Haddenham are no longer recognizable due to rapid expansion, and Stoke Mandeville is facing further development pressures which threaten its rural identity...

Question

I have tabled several new clauses that aim to ensure local infrastructure supports the needs of communities facing rapid development. Neighbourhood plans should be given more weight in decision-making processes, and promises of additional services must be guaranteed...

Question

We have heard a lot about the failure of developers to build infrastructure, protect nature and provide enough social housing. Does that not just show that the status quo is broken, and why the Bill is so important and heading in the right direction?

Question

Last year, less than 2% of new homes were social rents delivered through the planning system. Private developers prioritise maximum profit with high-end luxury builds... That is why I signed new clause 32 to introduce binding quotas for affordable and social rent homes.

Question

New clause 84 seeks to prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land... This is ludicrous. There are numerous questions over safety, fire risk, accessibility and proximity to homes and communities...

Question

I rise to speak to new clause 58 in my name. It would place a clear environmental and climate duty on Forestry England and its parent body, the Forestry Commission... That is a massive opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.

Question

I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that new clause 56 in my name would also enhance biodiversity...

Question

I rise to support new clause 39... This land is not just soil; it is security. Replacing it with solar panels serves developers, not communities...

Question

I rise to speak in support of new clause 64 in my name... We have a serious housing problem. Waiting lists grow faster in rural areas than anywhere else, and young people are forced out of villages and towns by the lack of affordable housing...

Question

Supports the measures in the Bill to streamline NSIP regime for large projects such as the lower Thames crossing. He also supports new clauses on net zero, sustainability, and social content of development but questions whether these should be included in the Bill.

Question

Critiques the lack of social housing target in the Bill, highlighting issues such as spiralling rents and long waiting lists for social homes. Calls for a charter that secures delivery of fit-for-the-future social rent housing.

Question

The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area... Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities.

Question

Electric vehicles are key to achieving energy independence... Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities must be empowered to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street work licences or planning applications?

Question

Does the hon. Lady agree that car parks and rooftops might be a good place for solar, but this country’s prime agricultural land is not?

Question

I rise to speak to my amendments 145 to 147 and to highlight the importance of new clauses 39, 84... The number of proposed battery energy storage systems is—if Members will pardon the pun—exploding.

Question

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker... My understanding is that it is hoped that new clause 82 has been selected to be called for a separate decision of the House.

Question

On swift bricks, Chris Curtis asked the Minister to give way for a question or clarification during his statement.

Question

Mr Speaker announced that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, a signatory to new clause 82, would not move it, contrary to previous understanding and precedent where other co-signatories could do so.

Question

Is it unusual that over 60 Members have signed a new clause but none can move it when they were given an indication it would be subject to a separate decision on the Floor of the House?