Matthew Pennycook
MP for Greenwich and Woolwich · Labour · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate.”
“I will address the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s specific question in due course. Before I do so, I want to put on the record the policy in relation to villages. He can rest assured that I will address the point; if he is unsatisfied, he is more than welcome to intervene again. A number of hon. Members mentioned villages.”
“I will say two things in respect to that, and I will come on to detail how the approach works in relation to decision making very shortly. In general terms, developers can make whatever claims they like about any particular site across the country; it is for the local authority to assess whether, in its view, that site constitutes grey be…”
“and learned Gentleman’s point about what is likely to constitute grey-belt land. Let me directly address his other two specific points. Is this a significant policy? Absolutely, and it has been judged as much by the Office for Budget Responsibility and other external commentators. Is it deliberate? Absolutely. We want, as the right hon.”
“Where authorities may wish to restrict development in villages for other reasons, a range of tools are available, such as conservation areas or normal development management policies. On the right hon.”
“We have to put in place policies that, through the decision-making route, allow homes still to be brought forward in that interregnum, but then we have to push heavily to drive towards universal plan coverage. At that point, the protections are in place.”
The complete record
Every one of 5,181 lines we hold for Matthew Pennycook, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 18 of 104.
“I have reflected on this amendment and agree with the intention of further protecting these important assets. We are already strengthening the protection given to them through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, and we think there are justifiable arguments for removing demolition of ACVs from permitted development rights. However, PDRs are established via secondary legislation, and it would not be appropriate to use this Bill to change particular development rights without consultation. As such, while we cannot support this exact amendment, I am happy to make a commitment today that we will consult on this change to the permitted development right for demolition at the first available opportunity.”
“I am afraid that my hon. Friend is conflating two entirely separate issues. We are committed to introducing a new suite of national policies for development management. We will consult on those before the end of the year. The Secretary of State provided a bit more detail at the Select Committee the other day. This particular amendment—Lords amendment 33—refers to the powers in the Bill to bring forward a national scheme of delegation, and I am making it clear that the sufficient consultation already built into the system does not require it to be taken forward via the affirmative procedure. I hope that reassures her. Lords amendment 37 would exempt assets of community value from the permitted development right for demolition under part 11 of the general permitted development order.”
“A legislative requirement for increasing densities does not allow for the consideration of local issues or circumstances, and would risk opening up the possibility of legal challenges to any or every spatial development strategy, which I am sure was not their noble Lords’ intent. On that basis, I urge the House to reject Lords amendment 39.”
“I will come to why we cannot accept Lords amendment 39. I respectfully disagree with the CPRE on this matter—and on a number of others, as it happens. There is not enough land on brownfield registers—certainly not enough that is in the right location or viable to meet housing need across England. That is why we have a brownfield-first, not brownfield-only, approach to development. Brownfield land is diverse and may not always be suitable. That is why consideration of brownfield land is more appropriately dealt with at the local level, through policy, where a balance of considerations can be weighed up.”
“By facilitating a more strategic approach to the discharge of environmental obligations, and enabling the use of funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, it will streamline the delivery of new homes and infrastructure, and result in the more efficient delivery of improved environmental outcomes.”
“It requires house builders to pay for localised and often costly mitigation measures, only to maintain the environmental status quo. By not taking a holistic view across larger geographies, mitigation measures often fail to secure the best outcomes for the environment. In short, as we have consistently argued, when it comes to development and the environment, the status quo too often sees sustainable house building, and nature recovery and restoration, stall. The nature restoration fund will end that sub-optimal arrangement.”
“I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that question—it is an apt and fair one. Such protections are already in place in the national planning policy framework. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him about the matter he refers to, but nothing in the Bill specifically targets the release of sports fields for development and the protections in national policy still apply. Finally, Lords amendment 40 seeks to restrict the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan. Before I explain why the Government cannot accept the amendment, let me remind the House of why part 3 of the Bill is so important. The current approach to discharging environmental obligations too often delays and deters development, and places unnecessary burdens on house builders and local authorities.”
“On Third Reading in the other place, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of developments. Lords amendment 40 would undermine one of the core principles of the Bill —namely, that the alternative approach provided for by the NRF can apply to both sites and species. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the amendment.”
“In respect of Lords amendment 40, I would simply say that there is no convincing rationale for arbitrarily limiting the application of EDPs to strategic landscape matters and thereby preventing their use in supporting the recovery of protected sites and species where appropriate. I remind hon. Members that the Bill is now explicit that the Secretary of State can only approve an EDP where the effect of the conservation measures will materially outweigh the negative effect of development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. Moreover, both Natural England and the Secretary of State will have to take account of the best available scientific evidence when preparing, amending or revoking an EDP, and EDPs will be subject to robust scrutiny.”
“I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual planning applications, but the Government have been consistently clear that meeting our ambitious development targets need not and should not come at the expense of the environment. Part 3 unlocks a win-win for nature and the economy. Although I cannot commit future Governments to anything, we are confident that the nature restoration fund and environmental delivery plans that part 3 facilitates will result in the delivery of more homes and infrastructure in a more timely manner, as well as improved environmental outcomes.”
“I will not, I am afraid, as I am bringing my remarks to a close, but I am happy to respond to any points when winding up the debate. I appreciate the leave you have given me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to set out the Government’s position on the large number of amendments before us. I urge the House to support the Government’s position, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.”
“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? I am not sure it stands—has he reflected on the situation where the type of intervention that underpins EDPs is already in existence and is having benefits for nature?”
“I am happy to intervene just to make clear that we did not adopt the amendments that were pressed on Report. There are very crucial differences between the package that we submitted and those amendments.”
“I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. In opening the debate, I set out at some length the reasons why the Government are resisting the bulk of the amendments made in the other place. In the interests of time, I do not intend to reiterate at any great length the points I have made previously. I will instead focus my remarks on expanding the Government’s arguments in key respects, and on addressing any points raised in the debate that I did not cover in my opening remarks.”
“As I said, the Government acknowledge the case for giving explicit recognition to chalk streams in national planning policy, although I cannot go further than the commitment I gave at the Dispatch Box today that we will lay out and consult on proposals to include that explicit recognition and in so doing make clear, unambiguously, our expectations for how plan makers and decision makers should treat chalk streams. That will be part of the consultation.”
“In addition, when determining planning applications local planning authorities should apply the principle that if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or, in the last resort, compensated for, planning permission should be refused. The application of these protections extends beyond strategic plans, to all types of plan and, crucially, to decisions on planning applications.”
“Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) referenced a number of cases where other legislation or other Government agencies are ultimately responsible for addressing some of the problems in question, not the spatial authorities that will bring forward SDSs. We therefore do not think that Lords amendment 38 is the right way to proceed. National policy is the way to proceed in the Government’s view. While I accept that chalk streams are not currently mentioned explicitly in national policy, the NPPF is clear that planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value, and local plans should: “Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks”.”
“If within that relevant period, either House passes a resolution or a Committee makes recommendations on the proposed amendment, the Secretary of State must respond, and that response must be laid before Parliament. There are two different processes. Turning to chalk streams, we have to be clear about the intent of Lords amendment 38. It is not a broad blanket statutory protection for chalk streams; it implies specific requirements on chalk streams in spatial development strategies brought forward by the relevant authorities. We think there are important practical reasons why those authorities are not the relevant bodies to bring such protections forward. In his contribution, my hon.”
“We want to ensure that Select Committees are engaged and that we have regular and timely updates. I can happily confirm, as I have made clear, that where a Select Committee returns recommendations during that consultation period, they will be taken into account. However, we need this change to make reflective amendments to the NPS to ensure that things can be kept up to date. Airports are a good example of where a full NPS review would have to take place. That would not be allowed to take place through the reflective amendment process, and that is not the intention of the Secretary of State for Transport. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must lay the proposed amended national policy statement in full before Parliament and specify a relevant period.”
“That is 21 sitting days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change proposed through the reflective route should be enacted. On who makes the decisions, it is the relevant Secretary of State who will decide whether a change falls into one of the four categories, but the categories are closely defined. They include: relevant published Government policy, a change to legislation and a decision of the court. The intent of the relevant clause is not to evade parliamentary scrutiny, but to address the fact that, on average, the Select Committee inquiry process adds around five months to the process of updating a national policy statement. That is as things stand.”
“Where the Government of the day intend to make a reflective amendment to a national policy statement, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and the relevant Select Committee will be written to. Ministers will make themselves available to speak at that Committee. On Report, I talked about that being wherever practicable to account for the usual scheduling challenges that all Ministers face, but I hope it is noted that I withdrew those comments. We expect Ministers to make themselves available to the relevant Committee in all instances, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period. Importantly, the NPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days.”
“I will of course pick up the drafting error that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has identified and rectify that. I am more than happy to take the data point away and reflect further. With the amendment in lieu that we have proposed, there is obviously a process around the regulations that come forward with further opportunities to feed in. I very much appreciate his recognition that the amendment in lieu goes a long way to addressing the points that he raised. I will pick up a number of the points that have been raised in the course of the debate, starting with those relating to Lords amendment 1. For the purposes of clarity, I will lay out again the reassurances I have given to the House, both on Report and today.”
“Friend the Member for South West Norfolk made a compelling case for many of the things we are doing outside planning policy to safeguard chalk streams. There are mechanisms to deliver chalk stream conservation, including through our plans to reform the water industry, under which water companies plan to spend more than £2 billion over the next five years to develop targeted actions on chalk streams; through biodiversity net gain, which requires like-for-like compensation or enhancement where development impacts on these areas; and through the system we intend to introduce of environmental outcomes reports, which specifically reference these bodies of water.”
“I think that is a slightly unfair précis of what I said. I take very seriously the commitments I make from this Dispatch Box. I have committed, in a consultation that will take place before the end of this year, to include in proposed changes to national planning policy explicit recognition of chalk streams and how they will be treated. The full details will be open to consultation. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We could have a much wider debate about policy versus statute, but we think that in the planning system there are very good reasons to put things in policy, where they can be amended or updated if necessary, rather than in statute. Chalk streams are a good example of where that argument applies. My hon.”
“I look forward to continuing constructive conversations with peers, alongside Baroness Taylor, to secure agreement across both Houses in the near future. I commend the Government’s position to the House. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.”
“To conclude, this Government were elected on a promise of change, and we are determined to deliver it. Through the measures introduced by this landmark Bill, we will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. Let me bring the House back to what is at the heart of this Bill: we need new homes and we need new critical infrastructure. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made that point compellingly. The need for those across the country is pressing. This Bill needs to receive Royal Assent as soon as possible. To that end, we have shown ourselves more than willing to make sensible changes to the Bill in response to compelling arguments, but we are not prepared to accept amendments that undermine its core principles.”
“We are working closely with the Ministry of Defence to bring forward a resolution to this issue via the working group, which I know he is aware of. We are clear that the array is a key piece of defence infrastructure that is part of international monitoring networks, and that any updated approach to managing onshore wind deployment near the array will not compromise its detection capabilities. Under a new proposed approach, the Ministry of Defence needs onshore wind proposals to submit specific information and comply with the seismic impact limit, and for determining authorities—the decision makers—to be bound not to approve applications if those limits are breached. I hope that provides the right hon. Gentleman with some further reassurance, but, again, I am more than happy to engage with him further.”
“Limiting the environmental impacts that can be covered is unnecessary because the overall improvement test that I have mentioned ensures that an EDP can be made only where it will have an overall positive impact on the environmental feature. I mentioned district-level licensing of great crested newts, which is an example of where a strategic approach can lead to better outcomes for nature, and that is the approach we are taking forward in this Bill. Lastly, I must reference the constituency issue raised by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) regarding the Eskdalemuir seismic array. We recognise the interference that onshore wind turbines can cause to seismological monitoring stations and the subsequent safeguarding concerns that operators of seismological arrays can have.”
“Gentleman referenced, we amended the Bill to allow the Government to bring forward regulations setting out how EDPs would prioritise addressing the negative effect of development, providing greater clarity about how the principles of the existing mitigation hierarchy are expressed through the new system. I will briefly touch on two further issues. On Lords amendment 40, as I said, we do not believe there is any compelling case for limiting the application of EDPs just to the issues that are covered by the amendment: nutrient neutrality, water quality, water resource or air quality. I think the challenge made by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), was that applying EDPs to species will somehow cause harm. That is not the case.”
“Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos). Natural England will always consider the mitigation hierarchy when it develops an EDP. That is an important approach when planning for biodiversity, as it is generally more environmentally effective and cost efficient to protect what is already there than to replace it. The requirements for the environmental principles policy statement include the prevention and rectification-at-source principles, which are key to the mitigation hierarchy. The Secretary of State must have due regard to the EPPS when making policy, and will therefore do so when making an EDP. We recognise, however, that we need to provide further reassurance. On Third Reading in the other place, as the hon.”
“Again, I am more than happy to have a wider conversation with him about this Government’s view of the place of neighbourhood plans in the planning system. On irreplaceable habitats, the national planning policy framework makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of such habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections continue to apply; nothing in the Bill bypasses them. Fundamentally, an EDP that would lead to irreversible harm to or the loss of an irreplaceable environmental feature could not be approved by a Secretary of State, as this would fail to secure overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant feature. I want to briefly mention the mitigation hierarchy, which was raised by the hon.”
“I cannot go beyond what I set out earlier. We will put the proposals out to full consultation before the end of the year. I will address the subject of irreplaceable habitats in this winding-up speech. In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of other issues, including the absorption constraint dilemma, viability, housing delivery targets and local plans. Perhaps we should sit down outside the Chamber and have a coffee, as I think I would benefit from his insights, but I shall certainly give further thought to the many points he made. On neighbourhood plans, they are not referenced in the Bill, other than in relation to an amendment we made specifically in connection with Ramsar sites.”
“We are taking the proposals forward on the basis of receiving an overall favourability of responses to our consultation on them, and because of the important role that such data centres have in supporting the Government’s economic growth mission. I hope that the Committee will agree that the changes are sensible and proportionate steps in ensuring that the planning system is flexible enough to adapt to emerging priorities.”
“That incudes considering whether the project is of a “substantial physical size”, is likely to have a “significant economic impact” or is important for driving growth in the economy. To conclude, what we are discussing today is merely the mechanism by which certain data centre proposal zones deemed to be of national significance may choose, subject to the Secretary of State’s decision, whether to give a direction to opt in to a different planning route—the NSIP consenting route—rather than going through the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 planning process. The legislation enables developers to request that their proposals be considered under the NSIP regime, subject to the Secretary of State’s direction.”
“DSIT is aiming to publish a draft NPS for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny in accordance with the requirements of sections 7 and 9 of the 2008 Act shortly after these regulations are proposed to come into force. The published draft NPS may also be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that has been directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process. In the meantime, the written statement that was published alongside the existing 2013 regulations states that the Secretary of State will consider “all relevant matters” when considering whether a project is of national significance.”
“The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is drafting, as we speak, a national policy statement for data centres, which will set out the parameters, thresholds or other relevant factors that may indicate whether a particular data centre development proposal could be regarded as one of national significance and so capable of meeting the requirements of section 35. Similar to national policy statements for other sectors of infrastructure covered by the NSIP regime such as energy, transport and water, the NPS that DSIT is currently preparing will also set out a national policy and the policy framework for decision making for data centres. This will provide greater certainty to applicants and decision makers alike.”
“Circumstances where a developer may wish to make such a request include, to provide the Committee with just a few examples, where a proposal also involves associated energy generation; where it may be particularly large or complex; or where it could benefit from the one-stop shop approach that the NSIP consenting process provides for. To be clear, sections 35 and 35ZA of the Planning Act 2008 would require developers of a data centre project to submit a qualifying request to the Secretary of State. They may direct a data centre into the NSIP regime only if they consider that the project or proposed project is of national significance, and that it meets the other requirements set out in section 35 of that Act.”
“The inclusion of data centres as prescribed business or commercial projects means that certain proposed data centre projects are capable of being directed to proceed through the NSIP consenting process under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. It is important to stress that the regulations we are debating today do not require any or every proposed data centre project to proceed through the NSIP route. The regulations will provide an opportunity for developers of certain proposed data centre projects to choose, should they wish to do so, to request to opt in to the NSIP consenting process.”
“In response to feedback from a wide range of stakeholders we announced plans alongside the publication of that revised NPPF in December last year to enable certain large-scale projects within knowledge, creative, high technology and data driven industries to be directed into the nationally significant infrastructure projects consenting regime process. These regulations deliver on that announcement by prescribing data centres as a type of business or commercial project that may be directed into the NSIP consenting regime. In effect, they add data centres to the existing nine prescribed projects set out in the schedule to the Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) Regulations 2013.”
“For those reasons the Government formally designated data centres as a sub-sector of communications in the list of critical national infrastructure in September 2024—a recognition that their loss or compromise could severely impact the delivery of essential services or have a significant impact on national security, national defence or the functioning of the state, as is the case with other CNIs: energy, water, transport and other sectors. The Government are committed to ensuring that the planning system effectively facilitates development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including supporting essential digital infrastructure such as data centres. In July last year we consulted on how the national planning policy framework could better support economic growth in key sectors, given their importance to our economic future.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Infrastructure Planning (Business or Commercial Projects) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—for the first time, I believe. The regulations were laid before the House on 15 October. The Government have identified data centres, the buildings that store much of the data generated in the UK, as essential infrastructure that is necessary to support, grow and develop the UK economy and that is integral to delivering the UK industrial strategy. As hon. Members know, data infrastructure now underpins almost all economic activity and innovation, including the development of AI and other technology. It is increasingly critical for public service delivery and how citizens interact with one another and the state.”
“There will still be an expectation of high-quality, early, meaningful, and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected, but we do believe—we had extensive arguments about this in the Bill Committee—that we need to move away from the rigid statutory requirements to this more flexible, guidance-led approach, which will improve flexibility for applicants to take into account community views and to respond appropriately to get the better outcomes. As we have discussed and as I have said many times, the current system is having a number of perverse outcomes that are not leading to beneficial results for that industry.”
“Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner will know, having been involved in scrutinising the Bill in Committee—we intend to publish pre-application guidance on what developers that want to submit a development consent order through the NSIP route should do. The consultation on the scope and design of our proposed guidance closed on 27 October. The responses to that consultation will inform the development of the guidance. Applicants will be expected to use engagement to deliver high-quality applications.”
“DSIT aims to publish the draft NPS after these amending regulations come into force, so it is possible that it will be published before any requests for a data centre to be directed into the NSIP consenting regime either come forward or need to be decided. That would mean that the draft NPS would be considered as an important and relevant matter in the decision-making process for any data centre project that is subsequently directed to proceed through the NSIP regime. The shadow Minister mentioned the changes that we are making through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will have a significant amount of time tomorrow to discuss amendments to that Bill. As the shadow Minister will know—and as the Opposition Whip, the hon.”
“That NPS is still in development and testing. Given the time that it may take to comply with the statutory requirements for designation of a new national policy statement, it was considered appropriate in this instance to lay the draft SI in advance. As I made clear, we intend to publish the NPS in draft form near the time at which this SI will come into force. The laying of the SI last month gives an indication to the sector—and the Government think that this is important—and to prospective data centre applicants at a very early stage in their development, who may be interested in using this route, that we are moving forward on delivering against the commitment we made last December. It also recognises the importance that we give to the delivery of data infrastructure more generally.”
“I thank the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesman for that series of points and questions, to which I will do my best to respond—I note that some of them stray outside of my departmental responsibilities. We are talking specifically about putting in place necessary changes to the planning regime to allow formal requests to be made for data centres to be considered under section 35. Other things, such as the spatial plans that the Liberal Democrat spokesman just mentioned, are matters for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and the NPS is obviously a matter for Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. However, I will make sure that the relevant Ministers are made aware of the comments of the hon. Members. I will start by responding to the points made about the draft NPS.”
“The examination process, which all NSIP applicants need to go through, provides the opportunity for local communities, interested parties and statutory bodies to make representations and for them to be considered by the examining authority in examination of the application and in the subsequent report that will be made to the Secretary of State for a decision on whether to grant development consent.”
“That is a fair question and the hon. Gentleman pre-empts the next point that I was going to make, specifically about local accountability. This is important. The NSIP consenting process provides substantial opportunity for interested parties, including local communities and local authorities, to have their say on proposals going through that process. Under the Planning Act 2008, local authorities are invited to submit a local impact report giving details of the likely impact of the proposed development on their area, which the Secretary of State must have regard to when deciding the application.”
“One such example is the use of a data centre to heat a local swimming pool in Devon. We will take that into account, as I am sure DSIT did in the drafting of its national policy statement and in its conversations with other Departments. However, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s comments are brought to the attention of the relevant Minister.”
“We are, however, very conscious that data centres draw on quite a significant amount of firm power, and the Government will take that into account in making decisions as to whether individual applications go through. Lastly, I should address heat, which the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington rightly mentioned. He is absolutely right to say that data centres produce a significant amount of heat. The technology exists to capture that heat and to use it in district heating networks, or to meet significant demand. There is potential, therefore, for the heat to be captured and used to further benefit than happens currently, but there have already been successful examples—which are worth highlighting—of using data centre heat for hospitals, homes and other uses.”