Daisy Cooper
MP for St Albans · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“As an Opposition MP myself, I must say that my party and I have been critical of the handover of power that has taken place in the Labour party, but this particular moment, on Third Reading, should belong to the families. [Hon.”
“The Liberal Democrat administration on Hertfordshire county council has made huge strides forward in improving special educational needs and disabilities provision. We were delighted when the Government lifted the improvement notice, which had been imposed when the Conservatives were running the council.”
“I associate myself and my party with the Deputy Prime Minister’s tribute to Sir George Howarth, and his remarks about the 7/7 bombings and all those who live with the consequences of that terrible day. I wish England good luck for Saturday evening.”
“It is clear that it is a two-horse race. [ Laughter. ] On a more serious and very sombre note, MI5 has defended in court an agent who they knew to be openly misogynistic and obsessed with violence. He used his position to coercively control his girlfriend, Beth, and attack her with a machete.”
“Member’s resignation until the investigation is complete, so that the good people of Clacton have all the facts before they cast their votes? Failing that, will he support our “Clacton clause”, so that, even once the hon. Member ceases to be an MP, the investigations can continue?”
“The right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—the Prime Minister in waiting—has said that his approach to devolution would be one of urgency, yet we understand that there may be conversations about delaying announcements on local government reorganisation and devolution of powers, so that the new Prime Minister has the glamour of an…”
The complete record
Every one of 611 lines we hold for Daisy Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 13.
“I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate and for starting it so well. He is right to say that there has been recent progress in the delivery of SEND in Hertfordshire, but much of that has started only since the most recent damning Ofsted report. Back in 2021, I invited the then Conservative leader of Hertfordshire county council to attend a ministerial meeting with me to discuss the funding formula and he declined. In 2023, the Conservative group refused to invest an extra £1 million in SEND services at Hertfordshire county council, as the Lib Dems had proposed, and only backtracked after that Ofsted report. This year, the Conservative education portfolio holder apparently decided to join the f40 campaign, but only after I had written suggesting they do so. I am pleased to see that there has been some progress, but does the hon.”
“One idea that was on the table in the last Parliament was that in some cases, the Government could put the money up to pay for the remediation, to take away the risk, and then use the power of the state and its lawyers to go after those responsible with penalties, so that the taxpayer would not lose out. Will the Prime Minister, who says that this is a moment of change and has committed to speed things up, please review that idea to see whether it could be used in some limited cases where there has still been no action?”
“The inquiry report is damning, and the testimony that we heard is utterly devastating. First and foremost, all our thoughts are with the victims, the survivors, the bereaved and everybody affected. In the last Parliament, many of us fought tooth and nail on a cross-party basis to improve the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill so that social tenants and leaseholders who are still living in buildings covered in cladding and with other fire safety defects could get that remediation work done as quickly as possible. It is now clear that in some cases, the waterfall system that has been set up, by which we identify who is responsible, is simply not working and is taking far too long.”
“Does she also agree that the Labour Government will, as part of its consultation on the national planning policy framework, make sure that infrastructure comes first, so that places such as Wixams are no longer let down by the planning system we had under the Conservatives, where people got housing without infrastructure, GPs or dentists?”
“It is one of the hospitals in the country that is ready to go—it has the land, it has permission, it has the plans and it just needs the green light from the Government. I urge Labour Ministers to recognise that delaying those plans does not come without a cost, because the repair bill is getting bigger and bigger. Finally, does the Minister recognise that we need an ambitious plan of recruiting 8,000 GPs? The last Government promised 6,000 and failed to deliver them. Does she agree that we should align the primary care estates strategy with the shift to community care?”
“To give credit where credit is due, there have been welcome improvements in the last 18 months, but there is no doubt that there are still huge delays in ambulance response times, which are very concerning to our constituents. Would the Minister support a Bill that I tabled in the previous Parliament to introduce localised reporting on ambulance response times, so we can see response times on a postcode basis? Thirdly, I am surprised there has not been more talk about hospitals today. We know there is a legacy from the last Government of crumbling hospitals right across our region—the hospital in King’s Lynn is one of the worst such examples in the country and is being held up by stilts. In my area in west Hertfordshire, we have West Hertfordshire teaching hospitals NHS trust and Watford general hospital is in dire need of a new hospital.”
“We also have thousands of dentists in this country who are willing to deliver NHS work, but who cannot because the contract is so convoluted. I ask the Minister to outline the Government’s timeline for negotiations with dentists on fixing the broken dental contract. I also have a specific request from my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who could not be here: he asks whether it could be made faster for people who want to operate NHS services to register to do so, because there are currently delays in the system. A number of colleagues have spoken about the challenges with ambulance waiting times. The hon. Member for Norwich South and I have spoken in debates on this before and he will know, as I do, that the East of England ambulance service has had a very troubled history.”
“It is why, on the first day after the general election, we called for an emergency Budget to give the NHS and care services the money they so desperately need, and it is why we continue to urge the Government to act with real ambition and urgency on these issues. In a debate on healthcare in the east of England, it is hardly surprising that dentistry comes out as the No. 1 issue. Dentistry is in an appalling state across the country, and particularly in the east of England, but arguably it is one of the easiest areas to fix. Under the previous Conservative Government we ended up in an absurd position where we had children having their teeth removed and people desperate for appointments, yet we had a £400 million underspend in one financial year.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) on securing this important debate. The NHS used to be the envy of the world, but it is now in crisis, and services in the east of England are no exception. We have heard many examples in the debate of where our health and care services are in crisis. There is no doubt that the new Government inherit a litany of broken promises from the previous Conservative Government; that is why we Liberal Democrats have put health and social care front and centre of our campaigning in recent months and years.”
“Will the Government put anything in the national planning policy framework that will give any protection at all to the concept of the green belt?”
“The Government indicated that they would be reviewing borrowing rules so that local authorities could borrow to invest. Will they allow authorities to borrow to invest on a scale that will allow them to put an end to homelessness, overcrowding and housing register waiting lists? What powers and resources will they give to planning authorities so that they can enforce the requirement to put infrastructure first? Will they scrap the cap on developer planning fees? Finally, some local authorities in the London metropolitan green-belt area, even when they have accounted for all their brownfield sites and all their grey-belt sites, still have to build thousands of homes on the green belt, land which is supposed to have been designed specifically to stop urban sprawl.”
“Will authorities that have recently conducted a green belt assessment need to do it again under the new system, or will the current assessment stand? There seems to be a conspicuous absence of a specific target for social homes—not affordable homes, but social homes. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take up the Liberal Democrat target of building 150,000 social homes every single year? We welcome the Government’s proposal to review the compulsory purchase compensation, but will she take up the Liberal Democrat plan to put an end to land banking by reforming the Land Compensation Act 1961 so that local authorities can acquire land at fair values? We welcome the review of the right to buy, but will the Government allow local authorities to use that money to replace lost stock?”
“I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also thank the Deputy Prime Minister for giving me advance sight of her statement, and associate myself and my party with her remarks about the devastating and senseless attacks in Southport. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. For too long under the Conservatives, we had a planning system that put developer greed above community need—a system that did not deliver the homes that we needed to tackle the crisis, but did destroy swathes of our green belt. However, the statement raises a great many questions, so here we go. Will local authorities that are at an advanced stage of their draft local plans need to start again with the new standard method, or will they be able to continue?”
“The legacy of the Conservatives’ new hospitals programme is dire, but the Chancellor will know that there is also a cost to delay. We have life-expired buildings that will continue to need to be patched up until they are replaced, so I urge the Chancellor, as I urged the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last week, to give the go-ahead to those projects that are ready to go and involve life-expired buildings. Will she review the outdated rules, and allow hospitals to spend more of their capital funds on helping with repairs and rebuilds?”
“Other trusts have capital funds that they want to spend but are not allowed to because of outdated rules, and there are industry concerns that the one, top-down, centralised approach of the Conservatives could decimate competition in that industry, when we need a thriving industry to rebuild our hospitals and primary care. What is the Secretary of State’s response to that approach?”
“I welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers to their roles, but let me gently warn him that if he intends to run a contest on which Member can harangue him the most on crumbling hospitals, our 72 Liberal Democrat MPs say, “Challenge accepted.” Under the Conservatives, the new hospital programme ground to a halt. We know the terrible stories of nurses running bucket rotas and all the rest. We have the worst of all worlds at the moment: trusts such as mine in west Hertfordshire are champing at the bit to get going but cannot, and are being held back.”
“The Liberal Democrats spoke about care a great deal during the general election campaign. At the heart of our plans was our pledge to introduce free personal care. Will Ministers please confirm whether they intend to open cross-party talks and, if so, whether free personal care will be on the table as one potential option?”
“Since the previous Government scrapped the covid medicines delivery unit, many vulnerable patients have been struggling to get the anti-virals that they need from their GP in time. That situation is made much worse when this kind of disruption happens. Can the hon. Lady provide assurances about any attention that NHS England has given to those two patient cohorts? If not, is she willing to meet me to discuss what we might do in future?”
“This is my first opportunity to welcome Ministers to their places. I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. I want to focus on the impact on the NHS. My thanks, and I am sure those of the entire House, go to all NHS staff who have been scrambling to deal with urgent inquiries from distressed patients. I wonder if I might press Ministers for assurances on two patient groups who need time-critical care. First, some patients require blood test results before they can commence urgent treatment or have operations. Are there any assurances on the attention that they will be given by the NHS, both now and in any future scenarios? Secondly, there are patients at great risk of becoming extremely ill from getting covid.”
“Sitting in their in-tray will be the results of the high streets taskforce, which I am sure will confirm what we already know: that the business rates system is broken, crippling high streets—particularly heritage pubs—while Amazon warehouses are being given a tax break. That system is not the foundation of a fair economy. To conclude, there are measures in the King’s Speech that we welcome, but we want to see far greater ambition for our high streets, our children and our public services, particularly health and social care. We believe that our amendment to the Address goes some way towards addressing those things, and we urge Members to support it.”
“Some people may remember that in the aftermath of the mini-Budget, the ex-Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), had spent the summer campaigning for a complete overhaul of the business rates system. On his first day in the job, I challenged him on whether he would in fact review that system. He gave me a wry smile from across the Chamber and said that he regretted campaigning so hard for it from the Back Benches. That review was left in the “too hard” basket; it is part of a long list of challenges facing the Labour Government, unfortunately with a similar refrain, but I implore Labour Ministers not to do the same.”
“Under the Conservatives’ funding formula, it would take 15 years for children in Hertfordshire to catch up with those in neighbouring Buckinghamshire, itself one of the poorest funded education authorities. That is an entire generation of lost young children and lost education because of a Government spreadsheet formula. It is just another unforgivable legacy of the Conservative Government, and I implore the Labour Government to look at this issue with fresh eyes and real urgency. Another engine of our economy is small businesses and high streets. Many speakers this afternoon, including many people giving their maiden speech, have talked about the high streets and local businesses that are the glue that hold our communities together. I would like to push the Government to go further, particularly on reforming business rates.”
“As our party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), has said, the Liberal Democrats will continue to be the voice of carers in this Parliament. If we want to boost the economy, we have to recognise that there are now several stages to people’s lives and careers. There has to be lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling from cradle to grave, but we still have to make sure that every child has the best start in life. At the moment under the current system, many children—particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities—are put at a big disadvantage from the get-go, and a huge part of that is SEND funding. As one quick example, my area of Hertfordshire is one of the poorest funded education authorities for SEND.”
“We can no longer suppress the pay of experienced care workers to fund improved pay for new starters. We must stop ripping the heart out of a retention strategy just to tackle recruitment. We have to do both. The King’s Speech was also an opportunity to go further on care. It was an opportunity to introduce paid carer’s leave, make care a protected characteristic, create a royal college of care workers, introduce measures to tackle to scandal of carer’s allowance overpayments, and put in place a framework for cross-party talks that would finally put social care on a firm financial footing for the future. I recognise that the King’s Speech is an opportunity for the Government to set out their priorities, but I hope very much that many of these ideas—particularly for fixing social care—may be announced in due course.”
“We Liberal Democrats will also be unapologetic and unrelenting in our focus on social care. We have campaigned for free personal care, and we will continue to do so. Free personal care is good for people’s independence and dignity, and for the NHS. It would also enable the many millions of unpaid carers, who currently pick up the pieces of a broken social care system, to up their hours, do more work, return to work and boost our economy. Health creation and wealth creation are two sides of the same coin. We look forward to seeing the Government’s employment rights Bill with interest. We Liberal Democrats have campaigned for improved pay for care workers, including by proposing a higher minimum wage starting at £2 more, but that has to come with improved investment so that local government no longer has to rob Peter to pay Paul.”
“That is where the Liberal Democrats want to see more ambition. We need to fix our crumbling hospitals, we need mental health hubs in communities, we need to boost our GP numbers, we need to guarantee that people have a legal right to see their GP within seven days, and we need to put an end to dental deserts. We all know someone who has had cancer and died, or someone who has had cancer and survived, but in every single year from 2015, the Conservative Government missed their cancer treatment target. We cannot allow that to continue. That is why we Liberal Democrats wanted there to be a legal right—through a statutory duty on Ministers—for this House and the public to hold Ministers to account on ensuring that people can see a GP and get their cancer treatment when they need it.”
“We Liberal Democrats set out an ambitious agenda during the general election, and we are pleased about some of the pledges in the King’s Speech. We are pleased that there will be reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, which is incredibly long overdue, and a number of other public health measures—especially on the protection of children’s health. However, we in this House all know that it is equally important to tackle the social and commercial determinants of health, and tackling child poverty is just as important as tackling the aggressive marketing of vapes and energy drinks. That is why scrapping the two-child benefit limit is in our Liberal Democrat amendment. It is also important that we focus on access to health and social care services. People must be able to access the care that they need when they need it.”
“When I gave my maiden speech in 2019, I was very proud to say that St Albans has more pubs per square mile than anywhere else in Britain, and today’s maiden speeches have given us enough historical nuggets for a maiden speech pub quiz—maybe I will write it on the train journey home. I am pleased that the topics of economy, welfare and public services have been brought together. Why? Well, during the general election, the Liberal Democrats put health and care front and centre of our campaign, and we did so for two reasons. First, it was the No. 1 issue that constituents raised with us on the doorstep. Every single person is impacted by the crisis in health and social care. Secondly, we know that health creation and wealth creation are two sides of the same coin. We cannot have a thriving economy if our population is sick.”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on an excellent maiden speech that highlighted the values of equality and fairness—principles that many of us can agree on—and on demonstrating his stamina by being the last Member to be called. With that level of stamina, I am sure that he will give the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) a run for his money. It is an honour to sum up for the Liberal Democrats. Once again, I extend a warm welcome to new Ministers and to our country’s first female Chancellor. I also congratulate new Members from all parties who gave their maiden speeches today. Their speeches did not disappoint; they were poignant, funny and bursting with passion.”
“It is the position of the Liberal Democrats that the UK Government should give their backing to the ICC. If the Conservative Government do not believe the ICC has jurisdiction, which international institution or legal mechanism do they intend to look to in order to ensure that any breaches of the law of war on the frontline can be prosecuted?”
“On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I offer our condolences to the friends and family of the late Lord Frank Field, and wish a happy Passover to all those in the Jewish community. Unpaid carers have shared heartbreaking stories of how they have been hounded by the Department for Work and Pensions and told to pay huge fines for minor infringements of carer’s allowance earning rules, all because the Government have failed to do anything about a problem that they have known about for years. Yesterday, one of the Prime Minister’s own dementia advisers resigned, saying that the Government’s treatment of those unpaid carers was “beyond the pale.” Will the Deputy Prime Minister apologise to all unpaid carers who have been failed by his Government, and will he commit to a full review of the system?”
“West Hertfordshire Hospital Trust is at the front of the queue for the new hospital programme. We have the land, planning permission, building design, political and staff support, and enabling works are under way. But, like many other trusts around the country, the hospital trust is being asked to submit business case after business case. Will the Secretary of State clarify whether those delays are down to bureaucracy and the new hospital programme, or are they deliberate delaying tactics by a Government who do not want to release funds to hospitals before the general election?”
“I will be supporting the measures in the Bill, but some of my colleagues have remaining liberal and practical concerns. For example, in 30 years’ time how does somebody prove they are 46 and not 45 without a driver’s licence or a passport? How can we prevent abuse at retailers, too? I hope the Government will be providing more reassurances to colleagues on these issues.”
“Earlier in the debate the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) talked about children gathering in toilets, desperate to use their vapes. I am aware, unfortunately, of one example in my constituency where children have gathered in toilets not just to use the vapes but to take them apart to use as containers for smuggling in more dangerous substances, thereby using the vapes as a new gateway drug. I therefore entirely support the Government’s proposals on the regulation of vapes. The question of a so-called smoking ban on those aged 15 and younger, stopping them being sold cigarettes, is not so straightforward, however. For Liberal Democrats there will be a free vote on this Bill; there are some good liberal arguments to be made both for and against it.”
“First, I want to put on record my thanks to the public health Minister the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) and the chief medical officer Sir Chris Whitty, who spent time answering my questions and those of some of my colleagues. It was a very collegiate exercise and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. It would be good to see more of that. The Government proposals on vapes are an absolute no-brainer and are consistent with Liberal Democrat party policy that was adopted at our conference last year, including the ban on single-use vapes on environmental grounds. Parents and teachers in St Albans are particularly concerned about the insidious marketing of vapes to young people: the colours, flavours and packaging are designed to appeal to children.”
“But do I think it is a useful step that will help us to tackle the dangerous health impacts of smoking addiction, to improve population health and to take pressure off the NHS? Personally, I do.”
“Some people have suggested it could be contradictory for a liberal to support a ban on tobacco for 15-year-olds and younger while wanting to legalise cannabis, but let me say to them that they are wrong. It is entirely consistent for a liberal to want to make harmful products illegal—harmful products such as nicotine in cigarettes, skunk and products with high THC levels that can cause psychosis—while simultaneously wanting to have a legal regulated market for less harmful products such as vapes for nicotine and cannabis products with low and regulated THC levels. In conclusion, do I think this measure is the first or best thing that the Government should be doing to tackle cancer? No. Do I think this measure is particularly ambitious? No.”
“We know that smoking is dangerous and highly addictive. We know that smoking is the UK’s biggest preventable killer, causing around one in four cancer deaths, including 64,000 in England alone. We know that 75,000 GP appointments each month are taken up by smoking-related illness. We know that smoking costs the economy £17 billion a year through smoking-related lost earnings, unemployment and early death. We know that it comes at enormous cost to our NHS, and we know that smoking rates in pregnancy vary hugely, with as many as 20% of pregnant women smoking in some parts of the country, increasing the chance of stillbirth by almost 50%. That is an incredibly stark health inequality.”
“The situation here is frustrating, however: it is a bit rich that the Government are bringing this Bill forward when they have simultaneously been slashing public health budgets, including for smoking cessation programmes, since 2015. Even with the new money the Government have put into smoking cessation programmes, the funds still fall far short of 2015 levels. We also know that smoking rates among young people have dropped very quickly; they are now down to 1% and continue to drop. Liberals do sometimes back bans when a particular product or practice causes excessive harm, and that is why I have decided to back this ban. Fundamentally, I asked myself a simple question: is this going to help reduce the overwhelming harm caused by the significantly dangerous and addictive practice of smoking? The answer is yes, it is.”
“What we need is research in rare cancers, outdated cancer scanners updated, cancer nurses and efforts to tackle waiting times. It would perhaps have been better if the measures in this Bill had been a single clause in a much broader Bill. To be honest, I am frustrated that so much energy is going into this Bill, which could be described as low-hanging fruit, rather than into producing a much more ambitious plan to tackle cancer more broadly. We need to see more ambition in this area. My second reaction was the raising of my liberal hackles. Liberals are not libertarians; we do not object to all bans. Liberals support bans as a last resort, but not as a first lever.”
“Colleagues across the House have genuine concerns about that point. I know from engagements in my constituency that a number of retailers already suffer attacks when challenging people wishing to buy other age-related products, so I hope the Government will offer reassurances about what they intend to do to tackle that. As I have said, I will be supporting the measures in this Bill, but coming to that decision was a bit of a journey for me. My first reaction on hearing of the Bill before it was published was indignation, because the measures are just a drop in the ocean in terms of what is needed to tackle cancer. One in two of us will get cancer at some point, yet the Government have missed their targets to provide fast cancer treatment every year since 2015 and have dropped their 10-year cancer plan.”
“Can the Minister today confirm whether that consideration has been completed and, if not, when it will be? My third and final question is will the Government urgently provide updated guidance for local authorities and the planning inspector, making it clear that the protection of undeveloped green-belt sites—not the grey belt—can be considered an exceptional circumstance, which justifies an alternative approach to assessing housing need? Since the new year, I have tabled 12 written questions asking for clarity on these issues. So far, not one of them has received a satisfactory response. Instead, I have been redirected back to the very statements on which I am trying to seek clarification. My constituents deserve straightforward answers on the Government’s intentions.”
“There is now a limited window of opportunity for the Government to intervene and clarify whether St Albans District Council can move forward with the draft local plan that revises the top-down housing targets downwards, in recognition of local constraints. To sum up, I have three questions for the Minister. Will the Minister confirm today whether the Government-imposed strategic rail-freight interchange, the size of 490 football pitches, which prevents the building of 2,500 to 3,000 homes, can be taken into account? Secondly, on 9 January, the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), responded to my written question on the issue of the green belt to say that the Government would consider whether updates were needed to planning practice guidance in due course.”
“In effect, they have all told the council the same thing: “You must meet this top-down target or you are at risk of your local plan being failed.” Without a local plan, communities in St Albans will continue to end up with our natural environment bulldozed over for inappropriate and oversized executive homes, with no way for the council to require developers to provide the three-bed family homes that our district so desperately needs. Indeed, the draft local plan that the district council has prepared has identified that more than 50% of the new homes in the area have to be three-bedroomed homes. Yet at the moment we have no way of ensuring that developers build them.”
“It was reported that one very senior and respected planning barrister, who attended a Hertfordshire Infrastructure & Development Board meeting on 29 February, described the Government’s changes as nothing more than “window dressing”. St Albans City and District Council has proceeded with its local plan-making, in compliance with the previous version of the NPPF, in the expectation that the Government would honour their promise to give councils more power and the ability to protect parts of undeveloped green-belt land. It is clear that those promises have now been broken. I am told that the Liberal Democrat administration has followed the advice of the Local Government Association, the Planning Advisory Service, the Planning Inspectorate, its own KC and external experts acting as critical friends.”
“Paragraph 145 had, in the version that the Government put out for consultation, the strongest and clearest indication that “Green Belt boundaries are not required to be reviewed and altered, if this would be the only means of meeting the objectively assessed need for housing over the plan period”. Inexplicably to those who expected that revision to strengthen green belt protection, that change was scrapped altogether in the final version of the NPPF. Indeed, there is not one single statement anywhere in the NPPF—none at all—that indicates to the planning authorities or the planning inspector that more weight can or should be given to protect undeveloped green belt over top-down housing targets. Planning professionals agree that, at best, the new NPPF brings nothing to green belt communities.”
“It is widely understood in the planning sector that “advisory” does not mean that it is merely a suggestion, but it is actually a warning. It is a warning that, if that target is not met, the planning inspector will almost certainly throw out and fail any local plan that does not meet that target. In paragraph 61, the accompanying footnote 25 restricts the circumstances that might permit deviation from the standard method to extreme examples, such as “islands with no land bridge”. It appears to deliberately stay silent on undeveloped green belt constraints.”
“Rather than softening the need to meet those top-down targets, the changes to the NPPF actually strengthen and reinforce the requirement of councils and their communities to meet them. There are at least five examples that I can find. Paragraph 15 changes the requirement from “addressing” the targets to “meeting” them, which is a significant change in firming up the requirement. Paragraph 60 adds a new requirement that the overall aim of any local plan “should be to meet as much of an area’s identified housing need as possible”. Again, that is a significant firming up of meeting that top-down target. Paragraph 61 codifies the Government’s previous position that “the standard method is an advisory starting-point”, but the meaning of “advisory” is not clarified.”
“The Secretary of State said on 19 December 2023 that the changes provide “clearer protection for the green belt…In summary, the new NPPF will: facilitate flexibility for local authorities in relation to local housing need; clarify a local lock on any changes to green-belt boundaries…the Government are ensuring it is clear there is generally no requirement on local authorities to review or alter green-belt boundaries if this would be the only way to meet housing need.” —[ Official Report , 19 December 2023; Vol. 742, c. 97-99WS.] The Secretary of State said all of that, but I have read the new national planning policy framework and I am afraid that it says absolutely no such thing.”
“After months of delay, hopes were raised that an updated national planning policy framework would finally address the scandal of local plans being required to meet those centrally produced, top-down housing targets, as produced by the so-called standard method. In St Albans, our council leader took the Secretary of State’s promises at face value, saying that that if the new national planning policy framework is changed, such that the protection of underdeveloped metropolitan green belt takes precedence over top-down targets, our draft local plan will change as well. But it seems to me that the changes to the NPPF actually make the situation worse.”