Questions whether targets need to be more achievable and realistic in Kensington, given a seven-times increase relative to previous plans.

Praises Bob Seely's work on the issue and suggests looking at councils that fail to have local plans in place as a way to address housing targets.

Agrees with Bob Seely’s points, emphasising the importance of reflecting true geography, protecting national parks and floodplains, and making full use of brownfield land.

Acknowledges the need for realistic plans that engage communities and emphasise local control through neighbourhood plans. Emphasises the importance of community spirit in development.

Agrees with Bob Seely’s emphasis on localism, noting that distinct areas such as Kent should have control exercised by local councillors at various levels.

Order. For people on the call list to have one intervention is pushing it a bit, but to have two is a little discourteous, given the amount of people who also have major constituency interests. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go ahead, fine, but he will go down the call list. [INTERVENTION by Anthony Mangnall]: Fine, Mr Speaker, but my hon. Friend is making an important point about the need for infrastructure. Our manifesto said that it would be “infrastructure first”.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), not least because it means that I am second on the grid for once. I notice that there are 55 Conservative Back Benchers hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, no doubt all to heap praise on the Government’s overhaul, or shall we say overturning, of the planning system—not only in the White Paper, but in the consultation and the changes to permitted development rights. These certainly do bring many disparate expert practitioners to the same conclusion. The president of the Royal Institute of British Architects says that “these shameful proposals do almost nothing to guarantee the delivery of affordable, well-designed and sustainable homes… they could also lead to the creation of the next generation of slum housing.” The Campaign to Protect Rural England says that “the acid test for the planning reforms is community involvement and on first reading, it’s still not clear how this will work under a zoning system.” The Mayor of London says that it “will be a disaster for London and will ride roughshod over communities and locally elected representatives. It will mean fewer social and affordable homes being built every year, poorer quality housing and local people left with out-of-place buildings and no opportunity to have their say.” Shelter says: “Section 106 agreements between developers and councils are tragically one of the only ways we get social homes built these days, due to a lack of direct government investment. So, it makes no sense to remove this route to genuinely affordable homes”. Is anyone happy? Yes, developers are happy because it slays their opponents—the provision of affordable housing and local democracy, and in the time I have I want to touch briefly on those two points. Removing the locus of the public from individual applications destroys half a century during which local communities, either through their elected representatives or directly, have been able to influence the built environment—the very substance of where they live. I do not know about other Members, but I regularly speak at my planning committee. I am engaged with about 30 schemes at any one time. I meet—now, I Zoom—residents and I make representations to developers on their behalf. Councillors do the same, and there are the formal powers that a local authority has. However, this is not just about elected politicians. I have the most amazing amenity societies, such as the Hammersmith Society, the Fulham Society, the Hammersmith and Fulham Historic Building Group and many ad hoc groups. Between them—not only using their own skills and expertise, but through judicial reviews and planning consultants—they make a real difference, and stop the worst excesses of the state when it is brought to bear locally. I can think, in the last 10 years, of the campaigns we fought to stop the demolition of Charing Cross Hospital, the West Kensington estate—750 good social homes—and Shepherd’s Bush market. We have a history in this country of mistakes made by top-down planning. Look at the destruction of communities and charities that occurred in the ’60s and ’70s. A lot of political capital is expended on stopping things happening. I do not regret a moment of that time, but I do regret that those powers will now be taken away from local communities. The Government have a terrible record on affordable housing. The removal of section 106 agreements, which, as Shelter says, is one of the few methods of getting affordable homes, the exemption up to 40 or 50 units allowing developers not to include affordable housing, and the permitted development rights will together destroy a majority of the very limited provision for affordable housing that we have. We need subsidy. We need developers to stop sitting on a million approvals that should already have the green light. We need the Government to actually work to incentivise and enable the building of housing. It is a red herring to say that the planning system is preventing that. These are appalling proposals, which will make misery for our communities, and I hope that Government Members will also oppose them.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate on a very important subject, and on his excellent speech. We need to build more homes; the Government are absolutely right about that. We need to level up across the country; the Government are right about that, too. But the problem with the algorithm on housing numbers is that it does not guarantee the building of a single extra home and, far from levelling up, it forces more investment into London and the south. That is a mechanistic approach and it is ill-conceived. We need to reform the planning system. We need to ensure that that planning system sees the right number of homes being built in the right places. But we will not do that by removing local democracy, cutting the number of affordable homes that are built and building over rural areas. Yet that is exactly what these reforms will lead to. We do need, as I said, to build more homes, but we will not do that by forcing local authorities to grant more planning permissions to developers so that they can build more homes to bring the price down, because developers simply will not do it. The Government need to think again, and they need to understand the impact that their proposals will have throughout the country—an impact that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight so ably set out. But I want to focus on my constituency. For the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, the housing target will go up by 21%. Given a previous planning inspector’s decision, most of those homes will be in Maidenhead, not in the Windsor part of the constituency, and there is already an implication that green belt needs to be built on. But those numbers are less significant than the increase that is faced in the part of my constituency under Wokingham Borough Council. That council, over the past three years, has seen the delivery of homes over and above its target, but its target of 789 homes per year is now to be more than doubled, to 1,635 homes per year. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those points. What seems to be happening is that if councils have delivered in the past—and they deserve to be congratulated on that—they are being forced to deliver even more in the future. Yet, by definition, if you have delivered in the past, you have less land on which to deliver in the future. It just does not seem to make sense, particularly when those who have not delivered are being rewarded by lower target numbers. That is the opinion of parish councils and town councils across the Wokingham area, including those in my constituency—Charvil, Remenham, Ruscombe, St Nicholas Hurst, Sonning, Twyford, Wargrave, and Woodley town council, part of which covers my constituency. They have urged the Government to think again, and to ensure that a realistic and manageable plan is put in place, that is achievable and does not create more problems than it solves.

Our planning system is critical to delivering homes and tackling climate change. The Government's reforms are undemocratic, reducing local say on development specifics and allowing conversions without planning permission, which can result in poor quality housing. Lockdowns highlighted the public health consequences of inadequate housing, and the proposed changes will undermine town centres by removing retail frontage.

The proposed planning reforms will have a devastating impact on North Northamptonshire. The formula for assessing local housing need requires 3,009 homes per year across the area, which is unrealistic given past performance and current capacity. The scale of growth is not supported by local people and undermines community consensus. House prices in North Northamptonshire are driven up due to incomers attracted by high-quality housing delivery, not local income levels.

People in Wirral West care deeply about the environment, green belt and green spaces. They oppose proposals for a golf resort in Hoylake and other developments that threaten these areas. The Government’s White Paper undermines local people's ability to challenge developments, contrary to promises of putting communities at heart. This risks undermining democratic rights and environmental protection. Labour opposes this and calls for more local say on development.

My constituents are fighting unsuitable housing developments such as those in Netherton, Crosland Moor, Pentlands, and Netherthong. Kirklees Council's plans lead to greenfield sites being used for unsustainable development despite local objections. The 'Planning for the Future' White Paper raises concerns about further loss of local control over planning decisions and protection of valued green spaces. Local involvement and scrutiny are needed, with priority given to brownfield sites and affordable housing.

The current planning system is already biased towards local councils and developers. The proposed reforms will further limit local participation in individual applications, hurting my constituents involved in protecting their communities from unsympathetic developments. These decisions affect those who live there long-term, not just officials or developers. My constituents have valid concerns about the impact on social cohesion and community wellbeing. There is no detail provided yet regarding how affordable housing will be ensured under new measures like section 106 replacements.

There is much to support in the planning White Paper, such as the brownfield-first strategy. However, there are concerns regarding infrastructure development and design standards. Wigan Council has enabled building on green fields despite having derelict brownfield sites. Traffic impact assessments often lack credibility, and the council plans developments with inadequate consideration for local needs and environmental risks.

Opposes categorising development areas into 'growth', 'renewal' and 'protected'. Richmond and Kingston are unique in their architectural and historical features, making a one-size-fits-all approach inappropriate. Emphasises the importance of local community engagement in planning processes. Concerned about loss of oversight over developments by local authorities due to centralised decision-making.

Critiques the housing algorithm for its anti-urban bias, noting that it unfairly benefits areas with existing development. Proposes a more urban-focused approach to address affordability issues effectively. Argues against sprawl and emphasises the environmental benefits of compact city growth.

The latest Government figures show that about 2.5 million planning approvals have been granted by councils since 2009-10, but only about 1.5 million have been actioned, indicating the lack of action might not be due to council delays. In my constituency, residents are concerned with developers breaching planning laws and want a quicker system for addressing these breaches. They also seek rights to appeal major changes in their area. Increasing minimum house numbers before developer contributions apply may hinder affordable housing provision based on local needs. Abolishing section 106 payments could deprive communities of benefits from new developments, as nearly half of affordable homes are funded by such agreements. Concerns also exist over proposals allowing additional storeys and reducing planning timescales to eight weeks, potentially curtailing the ability for public objections.

The Government's housing algorithm is inconsistent with their promises of rebalancing the economy, protecting green belts, and looking after natural England. This approach risks concentrating economic growth in the south-east, contrary to achieving national prosperity distributed across cities like Germany’s model. Representing an urban constituency with limited developable land, proposals for over 600 houses per year are unrealistic without compromising manifesto commitments on green belt protection. Building at this scale would strain infrastructure and impact the environment negatively. The algorithm overlooks commuter income, focusing solely on local affordability, leading to inaccurate housing needs assessments. This policy undermines local democracy by overriding community consensus and risks encroaching upon protected landscapes.

Though supportive of increasing housebuilding for young people's access to homeownership, concerns arise about the undermining of local democracy through mandatory housing targets that disregard community preferences. In Farnham, local initiatives gained overwhelming support but face potential dismissal by central mandates, illustrating contempt towards local decision-making. Additionally, higher housing targets may exacerbate land banking and fail to address affordability issues in high-income constituencies like Godalming where average house prices far exceed typical salaries for essential workers such as nurses or teachers. Furthermore, increasing development pressures threaten the green belt and countryside landscapes, critical elements of national heritage and beauty.

Agrees with the right hon. Member for South West Surrey, highlighting concerns about the Planning for the Future White Paper and its impact on heritage, local democracy, economic dependence on archaeology, housing crisis in York, and the specific issue of luxury houses being built rather than affordable homes.

Critiques the algorithm proposed by the Government for centralised house building targets, arguing it undermines local decision-making and skews development patterns. He proposes alternative measures to ensure planning permissions result in actual house construction.

Proposes ten ideas for the Government to consider, including utilising underutilized green belt land, prioritising publicly owned land for housing, expediting modular homes, repurposing long-term empty properties, addressing second home ownership disparity, tackling land banking by developers, reducing shared ownership entry requirements, promoting elderly accommodation development, and regulating foreign property ownership.

The Member thanked his colleague for initiating the debate and emphasised three points: the need to focus on the mix of homes rather than just the total number, the importance of reviewing the algorithm if it entrenches historical population patterns contrary to 'levelling up', and the issue with national parks affecting housing affordability in certain areas. He suggested separate assessments for different parts of an area with varying constraints.

Begum criticised the Government’s planning reforms, suggesting they favour developers over local communities. She highlighted issues in her constituency, including a controversial development at Westferry Printworks, where viability assessments were not published centrally. With high rents and low wages causing homelessness threats, she questioned how proposed housing reforms would address an impending crisis. She also pointed out that the new algorithm could exacerbate social inequalities.

Nokes emphasised the importance of local control in delivering housing needs assessments, arguing against a top-down approach. She highlighted Test Valley's track record of delivering new homes above target while expressing concern over punitive projected increases from the algorithm. She advocated for retrospective powers to tackle land banking and urged flexibility in planning standards.

Conservative MP agrees with his colleague Bob Seely and criticises planning Ministers who do not stay in their positions long enough. He praises the Government's 'brownfield first' policy and highlights successful housing developments in Stockport. The speaker calls for a greater focus on neighbourhood planning processes to ensure communities can shape their areas.

Labour MP discusses the relationship between property developers and Conservative party donors, stating that these donations influence policy decisions regarding planning applications. She criticises the Planning for the Future White Paper, arguing it strips local oversight of planning applications and reduces protections for green spaces.

The MP criticises the Conservative party's close relationship with property developers, highlighting that these relationships influence policy decisions. She argues against the Planning for the Future White Paper, stating it prioritises developer interests over human needs and could lead to a significant reduction in social housing.

Emphasised the proactive housing development in Dartford, highlighting a garden city project with 7,500 homes built on a brownfield site. Criticised the proposed doubling of Dartford's housing target and halving Gravesham's target despite similar conditions between the two areas. Stressed the importance of infrastructure alongside house building.

Critiqued the White Paper for concentrating housing development in southern England, ignoring levelling up promises. Raised concerns about the formula's impact on areas like the Cotswolds with high proportions of AONB and green belt land, predicting a 188% increase in proposed housing numbers over current levels. Questioned the assumption that higher housing numbers would improve affordability.

Acknowledged the need for more homes but expressed concern about centrally designed housing targets not reflecting local capacity to deliver. Mentioned specific infrastructure concerns in East Surrey, such as sewage and flooding issues. Proposed a binding build-out rate agreed upon with local input rather than imposed by central government.

Welcomed the Government's approach to housing targets but raised concerns about the formula consultation, particularly regarding affordability measures and infrastructure considerations. Highlighted discrepancies in proposed housing numbers between Hinckley and Bosworth and nearby Leicester city. Recommended adjustments to the formula to ensure better alignment with local realities.

The debate is about the impact of planning applications on residents and the importance of local decision-making in housing development. Karen Bradley criticises any form of central target for housing, suggesting it undermines local democracy and creates anxiety among constituents regarding inappropriate developments.

Robertson argues that building more houses does not necessarily make them affordable. He emphasises the need to build the right kind of housing in suitable locations, criticising current plans for building on floodplains and green belt areas. He questions whether council-designated protected land will take precedence over central government targets.

Mann supports home ownership but recognises the inadequacies of the current planning system, including rigidness, delays in infrastructure provision, and disparities between authorities. He welcomes highlighting areas for growth and protection but calls for further ambition in self-build opportunities and affordable housing discounts.

Blunt criticises the Government's algorithm-based approach to planning targets as potentially catastrophic, arguing it undermines public trust in local planning authorities. He proposes a national plan-led system for delivering development objectives strategically.

Noted the absence of Liberal Democrat MPs and compared current housing approaches to Gordon Brown's top-down regional spatial strategy. She praised Conservative-led Governments for increasing house building, aiming for 300,000 units a year by the end of this Parliament. Advocated for bottom-up reforms and stronger neighbourhood planning strategies.

Called for manageable housing targets locally, regional burden sharing, prioritising infrastructure before new developments, penalties for non-compliance by developers, reforming loopholes in the local planning system to prevent unwanted development, empowering neighbourhood plans with more authority, and urged the Minister to pursue reforms despite challenges.

Supported the Government's overall housing objectives but expressed concerns about the proposed algorithm, suggesting it disregards local policy objectives, supply constraints, and environmental impacts. Cited specific examples from his constituency showing the disparity between current targets and new proposals, advocating for alternative approaches to avoid high-density developments.

Emphasised the importance of considering the green belt in calculating housing targets. Raised concerns about undeliverable figures proposed by the algorithm for her constituency, highlighting its high percentage of green belt land and already developed buildable areas. Advocated for sustainable development led by local councils while protecting the green belt.

There are positive elements in the proposals, such as a national design code and locally produced design guides, but concerns remain about how infrastructure will be funded upfront if payments are only made at occupation. The speaker also questions whether the NHS is adequately considered in planning decisions and highlights issues with developer behaviour. Emphasises the importance of increasing build-out rates and addressing land banking.

The debate was concluded due to time constraints, with 28 Members unable to contribute. The speaker suggests that Westminster Hall's full operational status might provide more opportunities for future discussions on these issues.

The hon. Member for Newton Abbot, Mike Amesbury, thanked the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for securing the debate and expressed agreement across the Chamber on some positive steps outlined in Labour’s planning commission in September 2019, such as design standards, codes and quality, neighbourhood plans being on a statutory footing, but argued that these proposals shift control from local communities to developers. He highlighted concerns over permitted development, two-storey extensions, houses of multiple occupation, concrete over London and the south-east, undermining local councils, and stripping away power and finance from local planning authorities. Amesbury also questioned the environmental protections in the White Paper and its alignment with the Environment Bill. Further criticisms included the lack of mention of social housing, proposals to scrap section 106 agreements, the proposed levy to replace section 106 and community infrastructure levy, and the extension to permitted development which bypasses the planning system.

Grateful for contributions, highlights government's success in delivering over one million homes since 2010, announces a £12.3 billion package for affordable homes with more than half delivered at discounted rent. Defends against criticism from the opposition by pointing out that they built fewer council homes in their entire tenure than this government did in a single year. Outlines short-term and long-term proposals including reviewing local housing need calculations, engaging with stakeholders to address geographical imbalances, reforming planning system for future needs, and ensuring community involvement in design decisions.

Asks the minister to consider constituencies affected by national infrastructure projects like HS2 when determining further development land requirements.

Requests assurances from the minister regarding building more beautiful and aesthetically pleasing housing estates in line with Conservative principles, aiming to address fears about ubiquitous large housing developments.

Advocates for local authorities rather than metro Mayors to designate zones when it comes to planning decisions, stressing proximity to local communities.

Acknowledged that the debate was thoughtful and balanced, highlighting the need to balance constituent needs with environmental concerns. Emphasised support for Government Members who have spoken in favour of the motion, urging the Minister to take their messages seriously regarding housing development and the environment.