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 37 of 104.
“Although it has always been the case that those conservation measures would be maintained, Government amendment 95 introduces a requirement that an environmental delivery plan sets out how they are to be maintained and over what period, such as through conservation covenants or land agreements. I commend the clause and the Government amendments to the Committee. I turn to the amendments tabled and spoken to by Opposition Members. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire set out, amendment 18 seeks to prevent irreplaceable habitats, or habitats linked to irreplaceable habitats, from being included in environmental delivery plans. I should first set out clearly that the provisions in the Bill will not reduce protections for irreplaceable habitats.”
“As well as setting out further detail as to what an environmental delivery plan will contain, clause 50—with clarification from Government amendment 96—establishes the ability of Natural England to request that a planning condition be imposed on development as a conservation measure. Those pro forma conditions will allow avoidance and reduction measures to be secured up front, alongside wider conservation measures. It could be, for example, that as part of an environmental delivery plan dealing with the impact of water scarcity, a planning condition requires development to achieve a certain standard of water efficiency.”
“EDPs will be able to include back-up conservation measures that could be deployed, if needed, to secure the desired environmental outcomes. That is not only important for nature, but part of ensuring that the Secretary of State can be confident that EDPs will deliver conservation measures that outweigh the impact of development. This shift from the status quo towards active restoration is a key feature of the nature restoration fund. A draft environmental delivery plan will also contain information on the expected cost of conservation measures to ensure that conservation measures are adequately funded. The cost of the measures will be relevant to making sure that the levy is set at a reasonable level for development, while allowing us to be confident that the conservation measures will be delivered.”
“Member for North Herefordshire. The second concept is the relevant environmental impact of development, and the third is the conservation measures that will be put in place to address the negative impacts and contribute to an overall improvement in the environmental feature. For example, where an environmental feature is a type of plant that is a notified feature of a protected watercourse, and the environmental impact is nutrient pollution from housing development, the conservation measures will address the nutrient pollution from the housing development but will go further to improve the conservation status of that type of plant in that watercourse. In designing conservation measures, Natural England will consider the lifespan of the development and the period over which conservation measures need to be secured and managed.”
“The conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to provide a positive contribution to overall environmental improvement, delivering the win-win that we have spoken about. Clause 50 is central to establishing the new approach that I have outlined. It introduces requirements for the environmental delivery plan to identify and set out information on three of the key concepts that it deals with. The first is the environmental features that are likely to be negatively affected: either a specific protected feature of a protected site, or a protected species. Those protections stem from the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 or the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. I will come back to that point, which is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon.”
“Before I start, let me make a point that I think has been well conveyed, but that I will make again for the sake of clarity: I hope that Opposition Members who have dealt with me in the past know this, but when I say that I am reflecting and listening, I am. I will take all the comments about these clauses away. As I said in respect of the opinions that have been shared with us by the Office for Environmental Protection, we are already thinking about how we might respond to allay some of those concerns. Environmental delivery plans will ensure that the environmental impact of development is addressed through the delivery of effective, strategic conservation measures.”
“Just to clarify, for Hansard more than anything, I laughed only at the shadow Minister’s delivery of the term “blanket bog”. I was not in any way questioning the importance of that type of peatland.”
“However, requiring environmental delivery plans to go even further, in the way that the amendment proposes, risks placing a disproportionate burden on developers to contribute more than their fair share. In effect, I am arguing that EDPs already go beyond the status quo. With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member will not press the amendment, not least because we will discuss these issues in more detail in the debate on clause 55.”
“Clause 50 requires that an environmental delivery plan must set out not only how conservation measures will address the environmental impact of development, but how they will contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status of the environmental feature in question. That reflects the commitment that EDPs will go beyond neutrality and secure more positive environmental results. That commitment ties into the crucial safeguard in clause 55(4), which ensures that an EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the delivery of conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That means that environmental delivery plans will already be going further than simply offsetting the impact of development.”
“Member for Taunton and Wellington, so I will do so now. As he set out, it would require environmental delivery plans to go further than the current requirement to contribute to an “improvement” in the conservation status of an environmental feature to contributing to a “significant improvement”. The Government have always been clear that they would legislate only where we could secure better outcomes for nature, and that is what we have secured through these clauses by moving beyond the current system of offsetting to secure an improvement in environmental outcomes.”
“Moreover, as I just set out in relation to a previous amendment, both chalk streams and blanket bogs are protected by the national planning policy framework. They are not environmental obligations that can be discharged through the nature restoration fund, so they would not be the focus of an environmental delivery plan. The NPPF makes it clear that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. Those protections will continue to apply. On that basis, I hope the shadow Minister will not press the amendment. Due to the slightly muddled way in which we have debated these amendments, I have not had the chance to respond to amendment 13, which is in the name of the hon.”
“Indeed. I look forward to seeing how Hansard tidies up that exchange. As the shadow Minister said, amendment 148 would prevent chalk streams and blanket bogs from being an environmental feature for which conservation measures can be put in place that address the harm from development at a different location from the impacted site. Where the feature to which an EDP relates is an irreplaceable habitat, such as a blanket bog, it would not be possible for impacts on that feature to be compensated for elsewhere. That is the nature of their being irreplaceable. The Bill is clear that impacts must be adequately addressed for an environmental delivery plan to be made by the Secretary of State.”
“In addition, the charging schedule will be regulated in accordance with clauses 62 to 69, which will allow regulations to be made setting out requirements for how these rates will be determined. I think this is probably the appropriate point to respond to the shadow Minister’s previous point. Those regulations would allow for fees to be index-linked to account for inflation, which is part of what he raised, but he mentioned build costs as well. Those regulations allow that scope.”
“In establishing this new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that developers have clarity around the required levels of contributions to benefit from an environmental delivery plan. This transparency will ensure that developers can factor in the cost of the levy, should they choose to use the EDP. Clause 51 establishes clear, understandable charging schedules with each environmental delivery plan, including one or more charging schedule. These schedules will set out how much developers will be required to pay to discharge their environmental obligations through the EDP and will reflect the environmental impact that the EDP is seeking to address. This may vary depending on the nature and size of the development, with the charging schedules being bespoke to each particular environmental delivery plan.”
“A further important element of the clause is that Natural England must set out how the effects of an EDP will be monitored, which will be critical to ensuring that further action can be taken, if necessary, across the life of an EDP. Natural England is under a duty to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State in doing that. The clause also provides a power for the Secretary of State to stipulate further information that must be included in an EDP. It may be used for various purposes, for example, to require an EDP relating to a protected species to set out how relevant licensing tests are met. For those reasons, I commend both clauses to the Committee. I would like a chance to respond to amendment 3 if it is spoken to in due course.”
“Like the assessment of the baseline, the consideration of alternatives is an important step that ensures that the best approach is taken forward and justified. The EDP must also include an overview of other measures being implemented, or likely to be implemented, by Natural England or another public body to improve the conservation status of the environmental feature. This will provide confidence that the EDP is properly targeted and that the conservation measures are additional to other ongoing actions to support the relevant environmental features. To ensure clarity in respect of protected species, EDPs must also specify the terms of any licences that will be granted to a developer or to Natural England.”
“Clause 52 supplements clauses 50 and 51 in setting out further detail on the information that Natural England must include in an EDP, ensuring that EDPs are transparent and robust. As with all environmental matters, it is vital to understand the underlying environmental condition, which is why an EDP must describe the current conservation status of each identified environmental feature. This is crucial to set the baseline against which improvements can be measured. Flowing from that baseline, Natural England must set out why it considers the conservation measures to be appropriate, including details of alternatives considered and why they were not pursued, as well as listing the plans and strategies to which Natural England had regard in preparing the EDP in question.”
“I understand the shadow Minister’s point, and I will offer to write to him. His point about the sequencing of an EDP and the conservation measures that it would give rise to is valid. How can we essentially, through the fee and charging schedule process, ensure that those measures can be carried out on the basis of that fee? I will write to the shadow Minister with more detail on how we envisage that particular part of the Bill working. While later clauses set out further detail on the framework governing charging schedules, EDPs cannot function without them, and this clause ensures their inclusion and proper regulation. Let me turn to clause 52. As well as clear charging schedules, it is important that EDPs include a range of other matters.”
“While recognising the good intentions behind the amendment, the Government are confident that the legislation strikes the right balance in securing sufficient flexibility around the delivery of conservation measures, alongside safeguards that ensure conservation measures deliver an overall improvement for nature.”
“I recognise that the amendment is a constructive attempt to highlight an issue that the OEP highlighted to us. I make the broad point again: we are carefully considering the advice from the Office for Environmental Protection and will continue to work with the sector and parliamentarians to deliver on the intent of the Bill in this area. We have been very clear on the intent of this part. The amendment seeks, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just outlined, to require Natural England to produce a timetable for the delivery of conservation measures and additional requirements to secure environmental improvement in advance of development coming forward.”
“It would allow Natural England, the conservation body for England, to determine what the appropriate measures are for bringing forward an EDP and how best to bring them forward over the period of the delivery plan. We will come later to Government amendment 97, which in part deals with this issue by introducing a timeframe to the overall improvement test. It would mean that in applying that test, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the negative effects of development will be outweighed by the conservation measures by the end date of the EDP.”
“It is worth reading the OEP’s letter in full. It broadly welcomes the overall thrust of the Bill in this area. We will reflect on and respond to the concerns it has highlighted. We want to ensure there is confidence that this part of the Bill can deliver on those objectives—that win-win for nature. If the hon. Lady will let me set out how different elements of the Bill might provide reassurance in this area, she is more than welcome to follow up and intervene. The legislation is clear—we will come on to debate this—that the Secretary of State can make an EDP only when they are satisfied that the conservation measures will outweigh the negative effects of development. That test would not allow irreversible or irreparable impact to a protected site or species.”
“That, however, will only be where Natural England considers it to be appropriate and where it would deliver better outcomes for nature over the course of the EDP. The status quo is not working, and we have to find a smarter way to ensure there is that win-win. The alternative is to say that the status quo remains as it is, and we do not get those more positive outcomes for nature, but as I have said, we are reflecting on the OEP’s letter.”
“There is already a requirement in clause 57 for Natural England to publish reports at least twice over the environmental delivery plan period, which will ensure transparency on how conservation measures are being delivered. That requirement is a minimum, and it may publish reports at any other time as needed. The reports will ensure that Natural England can monitor the impact of conservation measures to date to ensure that appropriate actions are taken to deliver the improved outcomes. In establishing an alternative to the existing system, the Bill intentionally provides flexibility to diverge from a restrictive application of the mitigation hierarchy. We will come on to that again in clause 55.”
“I do not think I could have been any clearer that the Government are reflecting on the OEP’s letter and the points it has set out. I will not issue the Government response to that letter today in Committee; I am setting out the Government’s position on the Bill as it stands, but we will reflect on those concerns. If we feel that any changes need to be made to the Bill, we will, of course, notify the House at the appropriate point and table any changes. We are reflecting on whether they are needed to ensure that the intent of this part of the Bill, which we have been very clear must deliver both for the environment and for development, is met. I will finish by making a couple of more points, because there are other provisions of the Bill that pertain to this area.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is only seven days. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire might expect Government to move quicker than they do, but they do not. It is right that we take time to reflect properly on whether the Government agree that some of the points the OEP has made are valid—we are allowed to have a difference of opinion—and that we should respond in an appropriate way, or whether the Bill as drafted on the particular points made is sufficient. We are reflecting on those points.”
“I say it once again for the record: I have understood the hon. Lady’s point. I will reflect on it, in the spirit of this Committee as a whole. I have sought to take points away when they are well made, and to give them further consideration.”
“(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”— (Ellie Chowns.) This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.”
“I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am not going to provide the Committee with a running commentary on the Government’s internal deliberations in response to the OEP’s letter. I will not do that today. I totally understand why hon. Members are trying to draw me on the point, but I am not going to do that. I have set out the Government’s position, and I have made it very clear that we will reflect on the letter and on the points made today. Question put and agreed to . Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 52 Other requirements for an EDP Amendment proposed : 3, in clause 52, page 86, line 12, at end insert— “(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.”
“Additionally, the Bill gives Natural England the flexibility to have regard to any other strategies or plans it considers relevant. Again, we are trusting Natural England to make judgments that benefit nature; that is the intention of the fund. Furthermore, as environmental delivery plans discharge only environmental obligations relating to specific environmental features, climate change and carbon emissions will still need to be considered by developers at the planning permission stage. I hope I have reassured the hon. Lady that the requirements of the amendment are already addressed in the Bill, and I kindly ask her to withdraw it.”
“The clause also includes the power for the Secretary of State to make further regulations regarding requirements for Natural England when preparing an environmental delivery plan. Amendment 52 would introduce a requirement for Natural England to have regard to the Government’s carbon budget delivery plan and any reports or strategies produced under the Climate Change Act 2008 when preparing an environmental delivery plan. As I have set out, clause 53 is clear that Natural England must have regard to the environmental improvement plan when preparing an environmental delivery plan. As the environmental improvement plan covers net zero, that will ensure that Natural England adequately and appropriately considers those issues when preparing an environmental delivery plan.”
“To drive this join-up and to maximise the opportunities to align with wider strategies, the legislation stipulates that Natural England should have regard to existing plans, such as local nature recovery strategies and protected site strategies. The need for alignment between EDPs and other plans and strategies was raised consistently throughout our engagement ahead of the Bill. That is why the legislation is explicit in that regard. By aligning environmental delivery plans with existing plans and strategies, Natural England can ensure that environmental delivery plans benefit from existing work carried out to date and amplify rather than duplicate effort. This approach will enhance the effectiveness of EDPs and contribute to a cohesive strategy for nature restoration.”
“Clause 53 moves us from the content of environmental delivery plans to the procedure and process for how Natural England should approach the preparation of them. The Bill requires that Natural England notify the Secretary of State when it decides to prepare an environmental delivery plan, and must publish that notification. That will ensure that developers and other interested parties are aware of the pipeline of EDPs being developed and are given adequate notice. In establishing that new approach, we recognise the need to ensure that EDPs learn from and support the delivery of wider environmental strategies and support nature restoration.”
“It would be difficult to identify and contact each one individually, as I think the amendment would make necessary, and a disproportionate layer of bureaucracy would be created that was unnecessary given the underlying requirement to consult publicly on EDPs. I hope that with that explanation, the shadow Minister will not press his amendment.”
“Crucially for amendment 125, clause 54 already ensures that Natural England consults publicly on draft EDPs, which will provide to any landowner or affected business, including sea fishing businesses and those with fishing rights to affected rivers and lakes, the proper opportunity to comment on a draft EDP. That public consultation will allow views to be heard and therefore it is not necessary to require that specified groups be consulted in addition to the consultees listed in clause 54(1). In addition to the clause already providing sufficient opportunity for consultation, it would not be practical to seek the views of all sea fishing businesses affected by an EDP, given the potential number of commercial sea fishers—particularly in areas with high concentrations of fishers and fishing communities.”
“Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), would require Natural England to seek the views of impacted landowners, sea fishing businesses and owners of fishing rights when consulting on a draft EDP. Sea fishing is obviously an important industry and we understand the importance of ensuring that the views of sea fishers are heard. We also recognise that the views of landowners will be important when developing environmental delivery plans, and Natural England will of course work with landowners and all affected stakeholders. Similarly, DEFRA maintains good relationships with landowners whose land forms part of our network of protected sites, and will continue to do so following the implementation of the nature restoration fund.”
“It is important to note that Natural England can seek the views of any other public body, as appropriate, and the Secretary of State can expand the list to include further organisations at a later date. Opposition Members with concerns in this regard could perhaps outline why they think Natural England would not consult those bodies when it was taking forward an environmental delivery plan that it felt needed their input. We are confident that the approach in the Bill will allow any organisation or body that wants to engage with an EDP to have its voice heard. With that explanation, I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire will withdraw her amendment. Finally, amendment 125, tabled by the hon.”
“It would add the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection to the list of bodies that Natural England must consult when producing an environmental delivery plan. As set out previously, public consultation gives any organisation or individual an opportunity to provide views, without their being specifically listed in the legislation. The existing drafting would therefore allow the Office for Environmental Protection and the Climate Change Committee to provide comment through the consultation process where they think appropriate, rather than requiring Natural England to seek their views for every environmental delivery plan.”
“That is why the clause sets a consultation period of 28 working days from when the draft environmental delivery plan is published, unless regulations specify a longer period, and allows Natural England discretion over whether a redrafted environmental delivery plan requires re-consultation. In deciding whether to make an amendment, the Secretary of State must apply the overall improvement test. The clause ensures that environmental delivery plans will be appropriately scrutinised, while also being implemented at the pace we need in order to unlock development and make a meaningful contribution to nature recovery. Amendment 53, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, echoes her previous amendment, as she rightly acknowledged.”
“That could also include, where relevant, any mayoral combined authorities or mayoral combined county authorities. The clause also includes a power for the Secretary of State to add, via regulations, to the list of bodies that Natural England must consult, as well as to make regulations requiring public authorities to respond to consultations. The consultation process will not only lead to better environmental delivery plans, informed by relevant experts and local communities, but provide the Secretary of State with the assurance needed to approve an environmental delivery plan. We are making explicit provision for consultation, but we need to ensure that the consultation process is proportionate and does not unnecessarily delay environmental delivery plans coming forward.”
“In introducing the nature restoration fund, we have been clear that the new approach will be expert-led and ecologically sound. The Government recognise that environmental delivery plans will play an important role in reframing the relationship between development and the environment. It is therefore essential that the plans benefit from the relevant expertise and oversight. Clause 54 is central to securing the effective scrutiny of environmental delivery plans, and sets out clear requirements for Natural England to consult relevant bodies and the public. It mandates that Natural England seek the views of specified public bodies, including—as the shadow Minister noted—the Environment Agency and relevant local planning authorities.”
“I beg to move amendment 97, in clause 55, page 88, line 6, leave out from “if” to “on” in line 8 and insert— “, by the EDP end date, the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the EDP development”. This amendment makes it clear that the “overall improvement test” (required by clause 55(3)) will be passed only if the conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the development on or before the EDP end date. It also makes a drafting change to clause 55(4).”
“We will be giving further thought to whether we should do more to underpin people’s confidence in that area. I turn to clause 56. When an environmental delivery plan is made, the clause sets a clear 28-day deadline within which it must be published; it will include the date of implementation. Prompt publication is important not only for transparency but because an environmental delivery plan cannot come into effect until it has been published. With that explanation, I commend the clauses and Government amendments to the Committee. I turn to amendment 119, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. [ Interruption. ] I expect that she will speak to it after the Divisions in the House. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Gen Kitchen.)”
“In concluding my comments on the purpose and effect of this clause, I want to be clear to the Committee that the Government recognise the importance of confidence in the outcomes that the nature restoration fund is designed to deliver. We have designed that model to provide for positive outcomes in all instances; that is the test that an EDP must meet. I recognise, however, that that confidence is an area for concern; we have heard from a number of hon. Members on this Committee and other stakeholders in that respect. It is vital that people have confidence. Although I am clear that that is what the legislation is designed to do, as I have made clear I am also listening to views on how we make sure that the approach is as effective as possible.”
“The amendment is supplemented by Government amendment 98, which clarifies that the negative effect that the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan. This clause also contains other matters governing the approach that the Secretary of State must take when deciding whether to make an environmental delivery plan, including the ability to request further information from Natural England. There will be times when the Secretary of State decides that an environmental delivery plan cannot be approved, so the clause ensures transparency if the Secretary of State decides not to approve an EDP.”
“Once an environmental delivery plan is approved, Natural England will be able to proceed with delivering the conservation measures identified and take payments from developers that wish to use the environmental delivery plan to discharge relevant environmental obligations. In considering the overall improvement test, the Government have tabled Government amendment 97, which clarifies that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the overall improvement test is passed by the time of the end date of the environmental delivery plan. That will ensure that environmental delivery plans are focused on timely delivery of conservation measures and that the Secretary of State can approve an environmental delivery plan only when these measures and the environmental benefit will be secured by the end of the EDP.”
“The environmental delivery plan will also set out how the conservation measures will contribute to the overall improvement of the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature. The test is therefore not a limit on the ambition of environmental delivery plans, but a safeguard that the conservation measures are sufficient to deliver the desired outcomes. If the overall improvement test is met, the Secretary of State may make the environmental delivery plan. It is anticipated that the Secretary of State considers wider factors, such as whether the conservation measures that will be maintained beyond the environmental delivery plan end date are properly funded for that duration.”
“The test requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that conservation measures are likely to be sufficient to outweigh the negative effect of the development on the conservation status of each identified environmental feature. That test reflects the shift to a strategic approach, which, when considered alongside the wider package of safeguards, ensures that environmental delivery plans will deliver the better outcomes outlined in the plan itself. Environmental delivery plans will be evidence-based documents that will be subject to public consultation before the Secretary of State makes the decision to approve the plan. The Secretary of State can request further information from Natural England if needed.”
“The Government have been consistently clear—from when we published the Bill and beforehand, in consulting on the general approach—that the nature restoration fund is not simply about streamlining how environmental obligations are discharged, but about using funds more effectively to secure better outcomes for the environment. Clause 55 sets out the process for the Secretary of State when making an environmental delivery plan. The process begins when Natural England sends a draft copy to the Secretary of State along with copies of all consultation responses and Natural England’s response to the consultation. The clause requires that the Secretary of State may only approve an environmental delivery plan once satisfied that it passes the overall improvement test.”