Planning for the Future — [Sir Charles Walker in the Chair]

He expressed concern about Warrington's local planning system which has failed to address housing needs, proposing large new suburbs and urban extensions rather than focusing on regeneration. He highlighted that the largest brownfield site in Warrington was not included in the plan despite its potential for redevelopment.

Mangnall thanked the Minister for engaging with concerns and acknowledged some positive aspects of the housing White Paper. He raised issues about development in areas surrounded by national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, emphasising the problem of second homes being purchased at high rates. Mangnall also highlighted the need to consider rural areas differently from urban ones, praised South Hams District Council for meeting housing targets through a joint local plan with Plymouth, and advocated for community involvement in neighbourhood plans. He questioned how infrastructure needs would be met in new development areas. Anthony Mangnall intervened to agree with Kieran Mullan's point about building houses in the right places being a suitable approach to address housing needs and aligning better with constituents' expectations.

Emphasised the importance of reviewing housing affordability criteria and ensuring that house-building targets are aligned with local needs. Raised concerns about national parks, suggesting a differentiated approach to address varying land use constraints within and outside park boundaries.

Mr. Thomas highlighted the challenges in Cornwall where high property prices and low wages are making home ownership difficult for local people. He suggested that local authorities should be empowered to support local home ownership by restricting new homes built for those living elsewhere, focusing on innovative models like rent-to-buy which could benefit working families.

Ms Buchan congratulated the Minister on building 250,000 homes but criticised London's performance in delivering new housing despite receiving £5 billion. She highlighted her borough's unique constraints, including density and conservation areas, expressing concern about local engagement under the White Paper plan.

Ms Baldwin welcomed the achievement of building 250,000 homes a year but expressed concerns about the algorithm used in the Malvern Hills area, which is undeliverable due to floodplain and hills. She suggested putting more emphasis on small builders, neighbourhood planning, and addressing bottlenecks such as highway studies.

Kieran Mullan welcomed the national design code and locally produced designed guides but expressed concern over speculative housing developments that took place without local plans. He highlighted issues with planning delays, legal battles, resource constraints in some local authorities, and the impact of developer pressure on zoning decisions. Mullan also pointed out gaps in addressing infrastructure and NHS provision for new developments. He suggested prioritising the construction of homes already given permission to build more effectively. He noted that transient populations often have no opportunity to comment on planning proposals after initial consultations, highlighting a challenge for areas with frequent population changes like London.

Mr. Rowley discussed challenges in his constituency due to a lack of timely and effective local planning, leading to unwanted development and ineffective initial drafts of the local plan. He welcomed many Government initiatives but stressed the importance of detailed implementation to ensure benefits for communities, especially those with historical planning issues.

He thanked Sarah Olney for securing the debate on net zero goals. He criticised the White Paper proposals, arguing they shift control from communities to developers, creating monstrosities like high rises and two-storey extensions. He also highlighted that 61% of Conservative councillors believe these reforms are undemocratic.

The MP is concerned that the 'Planning for the Future' proposals fail to address local housing needs and economic opportunities in York, highlighting that 80% of proposed housing will be unaffordable one or two-bedroom flats. She points out that over £155 million of public money has been invested into a scheme without yielding suitable results for residents. Maskell criticises the lack of meaningful involvement from local people in decision-making processes and expresses worry about speculative investors taking control of development, which could negatively impact the city's economic health. York has not had a local plan for over 50 years, highlighting that tenure of housing is important and needs to match the current need.

She thanked her near neighbour for the opportunity to speak, mentioning the Architects' Journal campaign on retrofitting existing buildings. She expressed concern over the potential sacrifice of design quality in new developments and referred to a report by the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission which suggested that there could be a risk of ushering in substandard living conditions.

Cornwall has delivered 30% affordable housing over the past decade. The community self-build scheme and rural exemption sites should be expanded to help locals build homes in their communities. Public sector land integration, especially NHS property holdings, needs improvement for key worker housing. Simplifying planning discussions with developers is necessary to speed up house delivery.

Asked whether it would be more democratic to encourage public engagement at every stage of the planning process, questioning if recent proposals will lead to decisions being made behind closed doors and make things worse.

She expressed concerns about the proposed algorithm linked to the White Paper, which would more than double the annual housing target for Barnet to 5,744 units a year. She warned that this would lead to significant urbanisation of the suburbs and encroachment on green belt areas. Additionally, she criticised the proposal to redevelop streets of semi-detached homes as 'gentle densification,' arguing it would require mass compulsory purchase and demolition of suburban streets which is neither realistic nor acceptable.

She cited government-commissioned research from University College London indicating that homes built through permitted development are often of lower quality compared to those constructed via the standard planning process, describing this as a regressive step. She intervened to ask whether the existing affordable home ownership product was a better way of delivering social housing than the first homes proposal in the White Paper. Ms. Hobhouse intervened to argue that local councils should be trusted to make decisions about building homes and cited Bath as an example where 1,500 homes have been permitted but are not being built due to developers' inaction. She questioned whether the focus should be on providing social homes for rent rather than affordable homes, given that an affordable home would cost 20% less than the average house price in Bath.