-
Active travel benefits health and happiness. Local authorities face challenges in progressing schemes due to landowner non-cooperation despite willingness and funding. Current guidance is insufficient, non-statutory, and does not cover CPOs for active travel.
-
Supports speeding up infrastructure delivery but opposes forcing change through compulsory purchase orders, suggesting it can lead to a culture of nimbyism. Supports the introduction of additional powers for development corporations to deliver housing and new towns sustainably, reflecting local needs and incorporating long-term transport provisions.
-
The shadow Minister congratulated colleagues on their amendments, expressed disappointment that this would be his last contribution before Third Reading, and outlined the Opposition's fundamental disagreements with centralising zeal in the Bill. He praised some amendments from other parties for their well-intentioned measures.
-
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills echoed concerns about the impact of the Bill on communities and green belts, suggesting it could undermine environmental protections and fail to deliver meaningful benefits.
-
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness encouraged the Minister to reconsider amendments if the Bill is delayed in the House of Lords, emphasising the need for collaboration across parties to ensure better legislation.
-
The right hon. Member for New Forest East cited concerns from an expert about the proposed changes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, particularly regarding protections of delicate rural areas like the New Forest.
-
Supports the view that there needs to be a code of practice for CPOs to protect landowners. Expresses concern over the lack of trust between landowners and acquiring authorities.
-
Emphasises that the farming community feels let down by the Government, expressing a need for measures to show support for this group. Criticises the perception of CPOs as a burden on farmers.
-
Tabled new clause 85 aimed at delivering fairer compensation to individuals affected by compulsory purchase. Seeks to align compensation with full market value to reflect true property value.
-
Proposed new clause 42 aiming to modernise and standardise compensation provisions in the Land Compensation Act 1973. Aims to provide more equitable and just compensation reflecting true property value.
-
Asks why new powers for development corporations were created if local authorities should handle such matters, questioning the Labour party’s stance on this issue.
-
Questions whether the shadow Minister supports using CPOs for road projects. Proposed a new clause to promote active travel infrastructure while raising concerns over fairness and transparency in route justification.
-
The hon. Member questioned whether the previous Government's measures had been successful, suggesting that there are fewer young people buying and owning their own homes now than in 2010.
-
In response to Rachel Taylor, the hon. Gentleman reiterated his belief that the previous Government's housing measures were successful, criticising the current government for not reflecting on those proposals and making changes in the Bill. He also highlighted concerns about environmental standards and centralisation of local powers.
-
The hon. Gentleman stressed that the debate often sets up a false dichotomy between nature and development, arguing for a balanced approach to ensure both sustainable development and environmental protection. He highlighted rural community challenges such as an ageing population and shortage of affordable housing.
-
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the impact of compulsory purchase orders on residents along the A1 corridor and proposed new clause 42 to increase occupier’s loss payment from 2.4% to 7.5%. He asked David Smith for his support.
-
The hon. Member recognised the value of development corporations in providing affordable housing while also protecting the environment, using Harlow as an example of a successful new town.
-
Amendments propose that councils be given greater powers to acquire unused land, rewarding landowners with fair compensation rather than inflated prices. Concerns raised about the impact on farmers and small family farms, which have been hit hard by trade deals and inheritance taxes. Proposes clause 104 to extend public interest categories for social housing.
-
Argues that the loss of a home or farm due to compulsory purchase is devastating, not an inconvenience, and criticises the Liberal Democrats' proposal for increasing taxpayer costs through new clause 107.
-
Supports the amendment proposed by Freddie van Mierlo to provide a 'compelling case' justification for compulsorily purchasing land for footpaths and cycle paths, enabling local authorities to control development of such infrastructure.
-
Supports bold reform of the planning system but argues that the developer-led model is ineffective in delivering social rented homes. Proposes amendment 68 to end this model and deliver more affordable housing.
-
Concerns about compulsory purchase powers affecting the Scottish Borders. Advocates for a community benefit scheme where 20% of the sum for which a compulsory purchase is made would be paid into a community benefit fund to support affected communities.
-
Supports the concerns about increasing compulsory purchase powers and the impact on rural areas, highlighting issues with infrastructure projects in her constituency.
-
Questions the fairness of disregarding market value over agricultural value for land acquisition under compulsory purchase orders. Supports protecting market value to ensure fair compensation for landowners.
-
Proposes amendments 88 and 89 to extend circumstances in which hope value may be disregarded for playing fields and recreational facilities. Seeks to include such provisions when acquiring land for sports or recreational use, aiming to boost grassroots sports provision.
-
Made a speech about the importance of grassroots sports and announced £100 million investment in grassroots sports facilities.
-
Proposed amendments to help Ministers achieve expanding sports and recreation grounds without costing them money. Argued that CPO powers should apply where there is local need for sports and recreational facility at risk of loss to speculative development.
-
Critically discussed the new clause 127 and amendment 153, expressing concern over compulsory purchase powers given to Natural England. Felt it was wrong for a farmer in Keighley to be subjected to CPO due to development elsewhere in Kent.
-
Shared frustration with the expansion of compulsory purchase powers granted to Natural England. Believed it could do further damage to green fields, open spaces and farmland.
-
John Lamont supports his friend's speech, stating that the bill overreaches by attacking property rights, interfering with the market, and removing democratic accountability. He mentions constituents' concerns about disenfranchisement.
-
Reiterates his opposition to the bill, emphasising that landowners should receive market value compensation rather than agricultural value. Addresses the Liberal Democrats' position and expresses concern over the impact on the Valuation Office Agency.
-
Discusses challenges posed by Part 5 of the bill to the farming community, questioning why this government dislikes the farming community. Supports amendments and new clauses aimed at protecting farmers and landowners.
-
Supports amendment 151 for better design in housing developments. Argues that good design must support sustainable development, public transport, and the climate emergency. Criticises developer-led approaches to planning.
-
Highlights issues with house building without necessary infrastructure in her constituency. Supports amendments that strengthen powers for active travel routes and green space provision in new developments.
-
Urges the Government to support amendments that ensure development corporations meet climate targets and provide affordable housing with high standards.
-
Responds to key amendments, emphasising the role of development corporations in delivering large-scale new communities. Supports green spaces but argues existing policies are sufficient without additional legislation. Defends compulsory purchase powers against proposed repeals.
-
Questions Conservative defences on paying landowners the uplift value, citing Winston Churchill’s views.
-
Made a case for greater support for active travel schemes that are to be considered in the public interest for the purposes of CPO.
-
Proposed New Clause 85 to amend the Land Compensation Act 1973, suggesting changes to home loss payment percentages.
-
Brought up a new clause requiring development corporations to provide green spaces in new developments.
-
Moved the Bill for Third Reading, highlighting key objectives of the legislation including faster consenting process for infrastructure projects, strategic nature recovery approach, improved certainty and decision-making in planning system, land unlocking for large-scale investment, and cross-boundary strategic planning.
-
Concerns raised by residents about erosion of green areas around villages. The Bill's approach is undermining property rights and will face legal challenges.
-
Liberal Democrats voted against the Bill due to concerns over people’s rights, communities and fairness, and effects on nature. They championed a target of 150,000 social homes per year instead of millions of private market housing. The Bill undermines local democracy by centralising planning powers.
-
Questioned whether the Bill missed an opportunity to give national landscapes a seat at the table as statutory consultees, like Chichester harbour in her constituency. She believes cutting out voices from the planning process is not the way to deliver more homes or better communities.
-
The speaker expressed disappointment in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, arguing that it undermines local accountability and rights. They criticised the bill for its potential to harm the environment and support unnecessary development at the expense of green belt areas and community voices.
-
Richard Foord highlighted the environmental impact of the Bill on Devon, a county renowned for its natural beauty. He cited the rapid decline in wildlife over the past 50 years as noted by the Devon Local Nature Partnership and emphasised that nature loss is irreversible once it occurs. Richard argued that building homes need not come at the cost of nature and proposed integrating nature into planning to ensure sustainable development.