Matthew Pennycook
MP for Greenwich and Woolwich · Labour · United Kingdom
“The Government recognise the impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have. I very much agree with both the spirit and the letter of what the shadow Minister has just said. Our inboxes are full of cases of antisocial behaviour, which absolutely blights the lives of individuals and, in some cases, entire communities.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our ambitions to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation will benefit from the Bill, but they are not entirely dependent on this one piece of legislation. The supply statistics speak for themselves. Let me give the statistics from 2024-25.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, seeks to ensure that at least 10% of new social housing dwellings meet the M4(3) wheelchair-accessible standard in the building regulations. I very much commend where he is coming from with the new clause.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have had this debate many times, to date we have not set a national social and affordable housing target.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome that clarification. I was going to say that part O does not prohibit any form of active cooling where designers can demonstrate that it is appropriate. As I say, part O encourages passive design measures before relying on mechanical systems.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They did consult, very late in the day, on a UK connection test to determine access to social housing. The majority of respondents to that consultation did not agree with the introduction of such a test, and feedback highlighted significant concerns about its feasibility and the cost of implementation. This is really important.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
7,282 held · 7,246 searchable for Matthew Pennycook. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Friend’s comments, both today and previously, in respect of the BL1 green-belt site in Lightwood that is identified in the draft local plan, I know she is cognisant of the fact that I cannot comment on specific local plans, sites or planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but I will make some general points that I hope will be of use. I start with plan making. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. The benefits of an up-to-date local plan are significant and well known across the Chamber. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that areas need.”
House of Commons3 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing this important debate. I commend her for the compelling argument she makes about the importance of planning effectively for large-scale residential developments to ensure that they are well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, with all the infrastructure, amenities and services needed to sustain thriving communities. While I note my hon.”
House of Commons3 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am pleased to say that initial guidance has now been published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Natural England to support the implementation of the first EDPs. The guidance sets out the key steps for NRF users and explains the core operational processes that will underpin the NRF system. We will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further areas where guidance might assist as we work to roll out the NRF. To conclude, the regulations will support the effective implementation of the NRF by ensuring that the levy operates effectively, transparently and fairly so that we can build the homes and infrastructure our country needs while improving our natural environment for future generations. I commend the regulations to the Committee.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am also aware of concerns regarding the potential impacts of EDPs on development viability. I want to make it clear, however, that we have put in place important safeguards to protect developers who choose to use the NRF from unjustified costs. Public consultation and rigorous Secretary of State scrutiny of each EDP will ensure that proposed levy rates are carefully considered before any EDP is made. It is also worth reiterating—we debated this issue at length in Committee—that in almost all cases EDPs will be voluntary and developers will have the option to meet obligations through existing routes if they do not believe that discharging their obligations through the NRF represents good value for money. Although the levy regulations are a key part of the new system, we recognise that users will need proper support to navigate the NRF.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At times during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, concerns were expressed that funds collected through the NRF might be diverted to pay for other, unrelated priorities. I assure hon. Members that the draft regulations will ensure that levy funds can be used only for the delivery of the conservation measures set out in the relevant EDP and for the administrative expenses connected with that EDP. Clear reporting requirements on how levy receipts are spent will further enable the NRF to operate transparently and with appropriate scrutiny. I stress that levy receipts are subject to a statutory ringfence and must be used to deliver the EDP for which they were collected. Only costs reasonably attributable to that EDP can be funded through levy income.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable the delivery, management, maintenance and monitoring of the conservation measures identified in the relevant EDP. The draft regulations therefore provide clear safeguards to support the effective delivery of such measures. They ensure that payments from developers are sufficient to meet the costs of the relevant conservation measures, are properly recovered in a timely manner, and are aligned with the commercial realities of development. Levy rates will be set through individual EDP charging schedules, which will form part of the EDP, which is consulted on. Those charging schedules will be based primarily on the cost of delivering the conservation measures needed to materially outweigh the development impacts.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Where an EDP is in place, developers will have the option to pay the nature restoration levy to discharge the relevant environmental obligations that the EDP covers. That levy is the subject of the draft regulations that we are considering. The draft nature restoration levy regulations set out how the levy mechanism will work in practice. They will provide the statutory framework for key elements of the levy’s operation, including how liability to pay the levy may be assumed, imposed or transferred, and they explain how the amount of the levy will be calculated, when payment will be due, and the enforcement mechanisms available to Natural England when obligations are not met.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“EDPs will be developed by Natural England, the Government’s adviser in respect of the natural environment, and will demonstrate how the proposed package of conservation measures delivered by the EDP will materially outweigh one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species. Those conservation measures will then be deployed by Natural England where they will have the greatest environmental benefit. Each EDP will be subject to public consultation, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to scrutinise the evidence presented by Natural England before an EDP can be made. At the conclusion of that process, the Secretary of State will consider whether the EDP meets the overall improvement test established under the Act before they formally make the EDP.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Relevant clauses of the original Bill were strengthened in a number of important ways during its passage to provide further reassurance that the fund will deliver the improved outcomes for nature that are at the core of the model. It would not be appropriate to relitigate the lengthy debates that took place in the Bill Committee, but I take this opportunity to emphasise that strong safeguards were built into the 2025 Act to ensure that the fund will restore, not harm, nature. Those include a binding overall improvement test, monitoring and back-up measures, remedial action and the ability to amend or revoke plans if necessary. Shifting to a strategic approach requires positive planning, which is why the creation of environmental delivery plans sits at the heart of the model.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The purpose of the NRF is simple: to end the current suboptimal approach to discharging environmental obligations, in which developers are required to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo; and to replace that with a more strategic approach that will streamline delivery of new homes and infrastructure, while efficiently delivering improved environmental outcomes by leveraging economies of scale and reducing need for costly project-level assessments. As hon. Members are aware, the core principles and purpose of the NRF were subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 June. When it comes to development and the environment, this Government have been clear that we want to unlock a win-win for the economy and for nature. To that end, we legislated through the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to introduce a nature restoration fund that will unlock and accelerate development, going beyond simply offsetting harm to unlock the positive impact that development can have in driving nature recovery.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Environmental groups, local residents, local authorities and developers will each have a say on the particular levy being consulted on. That gives the public a chance to have input into what is taken forward.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The important point to convey to the Committee is that each EDP will be subject to public consultation. In line with the commitment we made in the other place, we have been working for many months with Natural England and DEFRA on the first EDP, which deals solely with nutrient pollution; we thought that was the best constraint to take the first EDP forward on. In bringing forward an EDP, Natural England will have to project and estimate the maximum amount of development that that EDP can cater for and set a levy rate based on what is necessary to deliver the conservation measures required to discharge and meet that overall improvement test; I will come back to that in a second. Natural England will set a levy for each individual EDP. That will be subject to public consultation.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those include promoting nature conservation and protecting biodiversity. We think that Natural England is the appropriate body. It will be supported to take strategic action to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual EDPs, using income from the nature restoration levy. This is a really important point: the levy is based on full cost recovery. As I made clear in my opening remarks, the levy can be used to support administrative duties tied to the EDP, but is primarily to fund conservation measures that EDPs will bring forward, on a full cost-recovery basis. The regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover management, maintenance and other things. That will enable Natural England to build and maintain the capacity and capability needed to design, implement and monitor EDPs effectively.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank both my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and the shadow Minister for those questions. Let me deal with them each in turn. It may be useful if I set out in plainer terms how an EDP will be made and how the levy will be set. The shadow Minister asked first about Natural England capacity. We debated that at length during the passage of the Bill: we believe that Natural England is the appropriate delivery body for the NRF, given its internal expertise and ability to operate effectively across the whole of England. It is also worth saying that when carrying out its functions under the nature restoration fund, Natural England remains bound by its wider statutory duties and general purposes, as set out in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2026.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have covered whether the levy funds are not required to meet costs in full. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised the absence of a legal route to exit a commitment if circumstances change, but we have designed the draft regulations to accommodate the changing circumstances that developers might face. The regulations allow for levy-related commitments to be cancelled in specified scenarios, ensuring that the system can respond when a development does not proceed as anticipated. That reflects a proportionate approach to provide certainty for Natural England in delivering the necessary conservation measures, while recognising that plans can change over the lifetime of a development.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In the very near future we will launch the consultation on the first EDP, which is on nutrient neutrality. Before an EDP can take effect, local authorities, environmental groups and others will have a chance to scrutinise it in its entirety. Natural England must then consider the consultation responses before finalising the EDP and the Secretary of State retains statutory oversight through the approval of the EDP itself and whether it meets the overall improvement test. I do not want to relitigate the extensive debates in Committee, but that overall improvement test is the test that must be met. In the case of the first EDP that we bring forward, it will be the DEFRA Secretary of State who makes the judgment on whether the EDP is to be made following consultation.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That allows the levy rate to change to meet the cost of the EDP, in line with the overall improvement test, but it does not require reconsultation in all circumstances. We would not want a wholesale public consultation on minor changes to the levy rate; when there are significant changes, the Secretary of State has the power to do that. The levy rate for developers is set at the point where Natural England accepts the commitment to pay. If the levy rate subsequently needs to be increased to ensure that the required conservation measures can be delivered, the new rate will take effect only for future requests made to the EDP. In terms of independent oversight, EDPs will not be black-box exercises; as we said, they are subject to public consultation.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that developers will start to make better use of the scheme. Let me address the points that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire raised, including on changing the levy without consultation. The Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 sets out the circumstances where reconsultation on an EDP is required, such as where new conservation measures are proposed or the amount of development coverage is increased. There are a couple of scenarios where that might work. Say the projected development of homes or infrastructure increases; there might be a need to amend the EDP. Alternatively, additional conservation measures might be required. Under the powers in the Act, the Secretary of State may direct Natural England to reconsult when there are changes to the EDP’s charging schedule.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When it comes to individual planning applications, developers will have to indicate that they wish to discharge their obligations through the EDP. At that point, there will be a commitment to pay on the part of Natural England. The developer can then use that commitment to take that through the relevant planning process. The planning process may not be successful, but if it is, the liability to pay is ensured and there will be payment into the scheme. In terms of cumulative impact, a particular developer may seek to discharge its obligations on a site-by-site, project-level basis, using EDPs only on some sites in the catchment—again, we would hope not; we want as many developers to be using EDPs as possible. That is probably unlikely if developers see that EDPs are working for them as an efficient way to discharge the obligations.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are taking forward separate regulations on the prioritisation of conservation measures: as part of an EDP, Natural England will have to set out in general terms a prioritisation and sequencing of conservation measures. Those are not mutually exclusive; some might be relevant and used in different instances. This is about what it brings forward to meet those requirements. As more developers come within the given area where the EDP is operating, Natural England will be able to leverage economies of scale. That is the big win here: allowing those economies of scale and that strategic approach. The regulations are not designed for payments in lieu. I hope that I have dealt with the cumulative impact.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us take the case of nutrient pollution, which will be the first we consult on. Natural England will have put together a suite of conservation measures across a designated area that it can call on to ensure that the overall improvement test is met. As I said in my opening remarks, each individual developer can still decide to discharge relevant environmental obligations under current arrangements if they do not feel that the levy rate provides value for money. However, we hope that the workings of the EDP will show that it is a very effective, efficient way to discharge those obligations. We hope that more developers will come in. As the levy payments come in, Natural England will begin to draw on the suite of conservation measures available to it.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an appropriate question. The shadow Minister may recall that during the passage of the Bill we committed to some upfront funding for Natural England. However, we have come to the regulations before us: the point is that the levy is designed to operate on a full cost-recovery basis. Rates are required to reflect the cost of delivering the necessary conservation measures, as well as covering the costs of monitoring and maintenance activities. Some of the levy can be used on the cost of setting up and consulting on an EDP but it is primarily for bringing the conservation measures forward. The shadow Minister also asked about payments in lieu—off-site payments, as I took it. The regulations do not provide for that. That is not the assumption that we are working on. I come back to what an EDP means in practice.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will return to the House with an evaluation of how that consultation worked before we proceed, although Natural England and DEFRA are working on the early stages of the EDPs for other interventions—great crested newts are a priority for colleagues in DEFRA. I hope that the draft regulations will be welcomed by the Committee and I commend them to it. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As we made clear repeatedly throughout the passage of the Bill, EDPs will be based on the best scientific evidence available and on all the expertise in Natural England to allow it to judge whether it has the levy rate right. As I said, that will be tested in consultation. To answer the shadow Minister’s point, I should say that the value should not be exceeded. I think I have responded to all the points. I thank Members for their questions. To be clear, this draft statutory instrument sets out a framework for the nature restoration levy and provides Natural England with the tools it needs to implement the nature restoration fund effectively. The draft regs are a necessary precursor to that first consultation, which as I have made clear will concern nutrient pollution only. That is the commitment that we gave.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the shadow Minister for his question. That brings me back to my point about how the levy is set and how it is tested through public consultation. It will be for Natural England to judge the quantum of development to be taken forward and to divide the individual charge on a per-hectare or per-dwelling basis in the most appropriate way. However, at the point when the developer seeks to discharge its environmental obligations through the use of the levy it will have consented to pay that levy amount. We will test the levy amount through public consultation, but the test of whether the levy is set effectively is that it allows for the conservation measures to be deployed. There is a statutory ringfence on the funds, so it is not as if the funds could be diverted to other uses.”
House of Commons2 September 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our proposals also include policies that embed a vision-led approach to transport, further embedding the changes that we made in December 2024; policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation; and policies designed to ensure that we are better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks, and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They include, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development; the establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around well-connected train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land; and policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The new decision-making policies in the framework published in 2025 are designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and do not need that degree of local variation any longer; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans as they are being prepared. To ensure that those changes made an immediate difference, the Government proposed that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one. As part of that overall change to the framework, we also proposed new polices to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago. The new NPPF that we consulted on is wholly restructured. It maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December 2024. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors. As hon. Members have noted, it incorporates new, clear, rules-based national policies for plan and decision making. The proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Among the many changes made in the initial revision of the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets—the Conservatives abolished them when they were in government, which contributed to the low number of net additional completions in our first year in office— a new standard method for assessing housing need, which is aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release; and support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure. As hon. Members know, in December 2025, we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions. The Government’s manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we consulted on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Issues such as the national scheme of delegation of planning functions—our modernisation of planning committees—are outside the framework, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and others about them. The national planning policy framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. It makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As hon.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for their contributions. The degree of praise that I received from Opposition Members is slightly damning of my chances in any upcoming reshuffle, but I thank them for their kind words. Members raised a wide range of concerns and asked many questions. In the time available to me, I will respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those relating to the national planning policy framework.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The NPPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in those areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. That involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test. In decision making, where necessary, planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on Government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments, it has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess. We will seek to do so in due course. The issue of flooding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, is of particular concern in her constituency, as she made clear.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have had this debate many times. I will come on to housing targets and the fact that if there is an up-to-date local plan in place, the housing targets do not need to be immediately revised. On the specific point about rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation. We have received over 20,000 responses to the consultation.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is not quite my reading of the Yatton judgment. The judge confirmed that even if a site fails the formal sequential test for flood risk, elements of the exception test remain valid material considerations that can outweigh flood risk under the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d). The High Court made a judgment in that case on the application of the policy, but it applies, as I have set out— [ Interruption. ] I will give way briefly, but I do want to cover the other issues raised in the debate.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Over the past two years, the Government have sought to revamp the planning system to ensure that it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building and high-quality infrastructure in the years ahead. To the point on infrastructure, the new NPPF strengthens expectations in that area as well. More needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, but the revised NPPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions today and wish them all, and you, Sir Desmond, an enjoyable and productive summer recess.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I must be clear that the proposals do not grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations. I will not dwell on rural or urban housing targets. I have said before and say again that across city regions the new standard method increases targets by 20% and, through that, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas and smaller cities as well as our larger city areas. I commend the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We ask them when they do so to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and where necessary reviewing their green belt. The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. There is no confusion about what it means. Where grey belt is being brought forward, it cannot fundamentally undermine the policies of the green belt across the wider plan area; we included that safeguard in the framework. On train stations, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was right that we want more development to come forward in sustainable locations around train stations. We obviously took a different approach to all stations, as opposed to well-connected stations, where we are looking for higher minimum densities to come forward.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers, compared with the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic predictions and unevidenced and arbitrary judgments. On brownfield, grey-belt and green-belt land, the hon. Member for Orpington knows full well that we strengthened the policy in the December 2024 NPPF on brownfield land. We have gone further in the draft framework that is out for consultation. It is not the case that there is enough brownfield land, particularly not viable land in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain exceptional circumstances, local authorities need to release green-belt land.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would also be disapplied where development does not achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk, design and being an effective use of land. I have only a short time available to me and a wide range of other issues were raised. I will touch on each briefly. On our housing target and the standard method we have introduced, in our view the new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing need and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important, where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted, and that is what the presumption provides for. However, the NPPF we published in December 2024 not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make it clear that its application cannot justify poor-quality development. Under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses or would use parks and open space or land identified for flood risk management.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It also included policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the national standards for sustainable drainage systems to provide a consistent basis for improving their design. On the presumption in favour of sustainable development, we are trying to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. Several hon. Members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up-to-date local plans and five-year housing land supplies. We are making great progress in driving up plan coverage. Over 60% more local plans are at examination now than at this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If it is found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk, the statutory guidance accompanying the building regulations promotes flood-resilient building work in flood-prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts. The draft NPPF that we have consulted on includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change. This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPPF with recent updates to planning guidance.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If I remain in post after the summer recess, I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady. Where the sequential and exception tests have been applied as necessary and are not met, the framework is clear that development should not be allowed. I want to push back gently on the assertions made by the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, that we have weakened the sequential test. We have not weakened the sequential test in any way. We have clarified through changes to the PPG the triggers for the sequential test as well as its application, but we have not weakened it.”
House of Commons16 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.”
House of Commons8 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required.”
House of Commons8 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process. The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required.”
House of Commons8 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗