Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2025-11-13

Question

The housing market is flat, and we need more building. What is preventing new construction? Is the stamp duty tax a major deterrent?

Question

Doesn’t Lords amendment 1 reduce opportunities for proper scrutiny of major infrastructure projects, such as HS2 or Heathrow's third runway?

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?

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?

Question

Can the Minister confirm that proposals will include protections for sports grounds?

Question

Does biodiversity have to be a central plank of the Government’s intentions?

Question

Why do developments with planning permission not get built?

Question

Would a 'use it or lose it' planning permission solve the issue?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

Question

Does he agree that Lords amendment 40 makes it even more complicated for people to build the homes we desperately need?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Question

Highlighted environmental concerns about chalk streams, including the River Nar, emphasising the need for legislation to protect these globally rare habitats permanently.

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...

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Question

Will the protection given to chalk streams in planning guidance be at the same level as that given to veteran trees?