PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Planning Reform - 16 December 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s ongoing efforts to overhaul the planning system.

As the House is fully aware, England remains in the grip of an acute and entrenched housing crisis. It is a crisis, first and foremost, that is blighting countless lives, not least those of the more than 170,000 homeless children living in temporary accommodation today, but it is also hampering economic growth and productivity by reducing labour mobility and undermining the capacity of our great towns and cities to realise their full economic potential. In grappling with this crisis, the Government have never been under any illusions, either about the monumental scale of the task before us or about the challenges that must be overcome and the pitfalls that must be avoided if we are to succeed. However, we remain absolutely determined to tackle this task head-on and make tangible progress towards a future in which all our people have a decent, safe, secure and affordable home in which to live.

We have committed ourselves as a Government unashamedly to an incredibly stretching house building target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. In the face of a housing crisis of such severity, anything less would have been a dereliction of duty. Progress towards that ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes was always going to be slow in the early years of this Parliament; after all, the Government inherited a housing market downturn, one that was exacerbated by the conscious and deliberate decisions of Ministers in the previous Conservative Government to make a series of anti-supply changes to national planning policy, including the abolition of mandatory housing targets. Such is the protracted nature of the development cycle that the corrosive impact of those changes is still in evidence today.

However, on taking office, this Government acted quickly and boldly to put in place the foundations of a revamped planning system that will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building in the years ahead. In December last year, we revised the national planning policy framework, reversing the previous Government’s anti-supply changes, implementing a new standard method aligned to our more ambitious national housing target, and releasing more land into the system through a modernised, strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release. In March, we introduced our landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill to further streamline and speed up the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, and I am delighted that that Bill will receive Royal Assent before the House rises on Thursday.

Over recent months, we have carefully considered the extensive feedback we have received on a range of policy propositions, from a brownfield passport to reforming site size thresholds. As a result, I am today setting out details of the next phase of this Government’s planning reforms. That next phase consists of action on two main fronts. First and most significantly, we are today publishing for consultation a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the national planning policy framework. This wholly restructured framework maintains and builds on the initial revisions we made in December last year. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors and incorporates new clear and rules-based national policies for the making of both plans and decisions.

As a result of the not insignificant risk and uncertainty that such an approach entailed, we took the decision not to proceed with statutory national development management policies at this stage. Instead, we have chosen to realise their benefits swiftly through agile national policy changes, while leaving open the possibility of a future transition to statutory NDMPs should it be required. The new decision-making policies in the framework published today are therefore designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans.

As well as setting out national planning policy in a clearer and more comprehensive manner, we are proposing a number of substantive reforms to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. These include a permanent presumption in favour of sustainable development, building on the proposals outlined in our brownfield passport working paper to make development of suitable land in urban areas acceptable by default; a default yes for suitable proposals for development of land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well-connected stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land, to ensure that sufficiently dense development comes forward around existing transport infrastructure; and a targeted series of changes to drive urban and suburban densification, including through the redevelopment of corner and other low-density plots, upward extensions, infill development and residential curtilages. We will also take action to secure a diverse mix of homes. There will be stronger support for rural social and affordable housing; clearer expectations will be set for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people; and more flexibility will be provided on the unit mix of housing for market sale where local requirements for social and affordable homes have been met.

In addition to these and other important policy changes on matters such as design, vision-led transport and climate change mitigation and adaptation, the revised framework delivers on various commitments made either at this Dispatch Box or in the other place. As a result, it now includes a clear requirement to incorporate swift bricks into new developments; the application of new national standards for sustainable drainage systems; explicit protection for our precious chalk streams; and, as a result of sustained advocacy by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), recognition of the importance of providing new, improved, accessible and inclusive facilities for children’s play.

Taken together, these changes represent the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago. The proposed framework is the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes sustained economic growth. We look forward to receiving feedback through the consultation.

Further revisions to the NPPF are not all we are announcing today. The second main front on which we are acting is support for small and medium-sized house builders. As a Government, we are clear that ramping up housing delivery requires us to diversify the house building market. Integral to such diversification is not merely arresting, but reversing, the decline of small and medium-sized enterprise developers that has taken place over recent decades. Building on the steps we have already taken to better support SME house builders to access finance and land, we are today announcing a series of policy and regulatory easements to help them thrive and grow.

In May, the Government published a working paper seeking views on a new medium threshold for development of sites up to 1 hectare with between 10 and 49 homes, noting that over 80% of such sites are developed by SME builders. Having reflected on the useful feedback we received, we have decided to go further. While the 10 to 49 unit threshold will apply, we propose to increase the size of sites covered by the new medium category to up to 2.5 hectares, thereby increasing the number of SME house builders being supported.

To support development activity on this new category of site, we are proposing limiting information requirements to what is necessary and proportionate. We are also setting a clear expectation that local planning authorities allocate 10% of their housing requirement to sites between 1 hectare and 2.5 hectares, in addition to the existing requirement to do so for sites under 1 hectare, to better support different scales of development. Without compromising building and residents’ safety rules, we are using the consultation to ask the technical questions necessary to determine whether to exempt this new medium category of development from the building safety levy, and we are exploring further the potential benefits and drawbacks of enabling developers of medium sites to discharge social and affordable housing requirements through cash contributions in lieu of direct delivery.

Finally, having considered carefully the responses to the consultation undertaken by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs earlier this year, I can confirm that the Government will exempt smaller developments of up to 0.2 hectares from biodiversity net gain and introduce a suite of other, simplified requirements to improve the implementation of BNG on small and medium sites that are not exempted. DEFRA will also rapidly consult on an additional targeted exemption for brownfield residential development, testing the definition of land to which it should apply and a range of site sizes up to 2.5 hectares.

This Government promised to get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. While there is more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, the further changes to regulation and policy we have announced today are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. They will not be without their critics, both in this House and in the country, but in the face of a housing crisis that has become a genuine emergency in many parts of England, we will act where previous Governments have failed to ensure that a decent, safe, secure and affordable home is the right of all working people, rather than a privilege enjoyed only by some.

I commend this statement to the House.

I call the shadow Minister.

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.

This Labour Government’s last planning framework began pushing development on to rural areas, prioritising concreting over the green belt and green fields rather than focusing on supporting building in urban areas, which is where we need to build most. From what the Minister has just said, it sounds as though the Government are going to double down on this approach with an all-out assault on the green belt. Over the past decade in London, under its abysmal mayor, Labour has conspicuously failed to build the right amount of housing, and now it is going to fail to build the right kind of housing in the right places in the rest of England. It clearly prefers to target building in rural areas, while not building in the cities and urban areas where demand is highest and much of the necessary infrastructure already exists.

At the current rate of house building under Labour, which is at a dismal low, the Government will fail by some distance to meet their target of 1.5 million homes. House building is falling under Labour, with the number of additional dwellings delivered in 2024-25 falling by 12,810. If the delivery of net additional dwellings continues at this rate, Labour will deliver its target not by the end of this Parliament but in seven years’ time. This Labour Government’s record on house building is dreadful—they delivered fewer homes in their first year in office than we delivered during a global pandemic. This is not a good sign for Labour’s first year in office, and now this Labour Government are intent on ignoring the voices of local people up and down the country while imposing top-down housing targets, disproportionately in rural areas, and tightening their grip through Whitehall-imposed targets.

The reality is that Labour is prioritising building on rural areas while claiming that it is grey-belt land. It is now returning to something that the previous Labour Government did, namely garden grabbing. The previous Conservative Government removed the top-down diktats that forced councils to demolish gardens, but the Minister has just promised “the redevelopment of low-density” residential plots, introducing higher buildings at street corners and “infill development” within “residential curtilages”. It is clear that, because of Labour’s failure to build homes on brownfield land, it now has residential gardens in its sights. The Government should be prioritising and incentivising brownfield development first, and making it easier to build on brownfield sites in cities and urban areas, but they are not—they are only paying it lip service. If Labour really wants homes to be built where they are needed, it should think again about how its planning framework will actually deliver.

There are many questions about the Government’s approach, but time is short, so I will restrict myself to four. The Minister states that there should be “a default yes for suitable proposals for development of land around rail stations within existing settlements and around well-connected stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land”. In that context, what is a “well-connected station”?

The Minister proposes “action to secure a diverse mix of homes” and “stronger support for rural social and affordable housing”. What form will the support take? What regulations will the Government relax or scrap to support housing delivery? What incentives will they offer to get brownfield development actually to happen?

Finally, the views of local people are not a burden in assessing planning applications; they are among the most important factors. Putting local people and local concerns high up the agenda is a long-established and democratic precedent that successive Governments have followed. However, I fear for their voices under the current Administration. The Government railroaded their Planning and Infrastructure Bill through Parliament and are now following up with this statement. It is increasingly clear that the planning system that this Government are not just envisaging and planning for, but actively creating, is one in which such local concerns are much harder to raise. His Majesty’s Opposition do not believe that local people and local democracy should suffer for that.

The Government are eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and local people. That is why we are clear that local voices, not just Whitehall’s, must play a key part in any planning decisions. We will continue to scrutinise the framework as the Labour Government implement it, and we will hold them accountable as it begins to negatively impact local communities.

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. I appreciate that he has not had a huge amount of time to look over today’s announcement, but he has completely misunderstood one of the primary thrusts of the changes we are making, which is to double down on a brownfield-first approach. Through the draft framework, we are introducing a presumption in principle for development in urban areas. We want to make clear in principle what forms of development are acceptable in different locations. Building on our brownfield passports, that will mean that, in practice, the development of suitable urban land will be acceptable by default. That is a doubling down on a brownfield-first approach.

The shadow Minister raised concerns about the green-belt. As ever, this Government are committed to protecting the green-belt, which has served England’s towns and cities well over many decades, but we did introduce—[Interruption.] I am more than happy to have a debate with Opposition Members. We replaced the haphazard approach to green-belt release under the previous Government with a more strategic and modernised approach. All the draft framework does is build on that approach in a specific form by allowing development to proceed in the green-belt on well-connected stations.

I should say that well-connected stations are precisely defined as the 60 highest travel-to-work areas based on gross value added. However, as with all the policies in the draft framework, we are consulting on whether that is the right number or whether it should go higher or lower. There are appropriate densities in the framework for all stations across the country and higher densities for specific well-connected stations in those areas.

The shadow Minister asked me what we are doing on rural affordable housing. We want to see greater support for social and affordable housing in rural areas. The new framework—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy; makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including by removing the need for legislative designation; and removes the first homes exception sites as a stand-alone form of exception site, to avoid driving up land prices and crowding out wider social and affordable tenures.

Finally, the shadow Minister critiques this Government’s record on housing supply, and it is true that net additional dwellings in 2024-25 stood at 208,600, but in attempting to castigate this Government for that figure, he betrays his ignorance of the development process. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of new homes completed in 2024-25 are the result of planning applications submitted in the last Parliament. In criticising those numbers, he is rebuking his own Government’s record. He is right to do so because, as many hon. Members know, the previous Government, in abolishing mandatory housing targets, have torpedoed housing supply in this country. We are turning things around, and the draft framework will help us to do just that.

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

I thank the Minister for his statement. I commend him for his work on bringing the planning system up to date, which can be quite a technical process, and on the landmark Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which will receive Royal Assent later this month. I welcome the fact that the Minister has listened to many people from across the sector before making some of the changes, including the default yes on development around train stations and the national standards for drainage.

We must remember that many children do not have access to a play space, so the inclusion of measures on play spaces is vital. It is easy for us to get caught up in the technical aspects of planning, but we have to remember the 170,000 children stuck in temporary accommodation this Christmas; if we do not get moving on this, they will still be there next year. That means building more homes, including social homes. I heard what the Minister said about NDMPs. I am hopeful that that will be kept under review, so that we can look at planning decisions and speed up planning reforms.

I have raised accessible housing with the Minister before; in particular, housing should be delivered in line with the requirements of approved document M4(2) and M4(3) under the Building Regulations 2010. Will there be a target for these new homes? What discussions has he had with advocacy groups and disability groups to make sure that those homes are fit for purpose for everyone?

I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee, who makes a very good point. The Conservative party does not want development on the greenbelt, and it does not want urban and suburban intensification; in short, it does not want homes brought forward in the volume required to meet housing demand across the country.

My hon. Friend asks a specific question about accessible housing. The changes we are making through the draft framework will set new, higher requirements for authorities to deliver more accessible housing. They include proposals for 40% of new builds to meet mandatory accessibility standards, and proposals to ensure that local plans provide for wheelchair accessible homes. I stress that that is a minimum, not a target. It will drive up the provision of accessible housing overall—I note that some local plans at present have 0%—while ensuring that different levels of local need are met.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Although I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement, I fear that it represents an unprecedented removal of power from local people and local government by a Government who appear to have given up on sustainable development as a driving force behind decision making. The cost-benefit statement reads like it was written in the Treasury. It sees only the benefits of development, and none of the costs to communities or nature.

Under the new framework, sustainable development is no longer the pre-eminent principle. The framework means widespread development in the greenbelt. The presumption has so many holes in it that buildings put up for any purpose, including under permitted development, will now be green-lighted for development across the open countryside. Lorry parks in green fields will be green-lighted. The framework rewrites and overrides the policies in local plans. For many authorities, the value and purpose of all the expense that they went to in writing a local plan will be called into question.

I have only one minute, which is simply not enough time to debate the most significant rolling back of planning controls for decades, so will the Minister hold a debate on the framework in Government time, so that all hon. Members have the chance to debate it? The framework will have much more impact than the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which recently went through Parliament. Will the Government upgrade the framework’s wishy-washy mention of chalk streams, and recognise them fully as irreplaceable habitats? Will the Minister reverse the abolition of BNG for 0.2 hectare sites, and go with the 0.1 hectare limit that environmental non-governmental organisations call for? Will the Government increase their target for social and council-rent homes from 18,000 per year to the 150,000 per year that we Liberal Democrats wish to see, or at least to the 90,000 per year that Shelter wishes to see? Finally, will the Government go further and ensure that the 1.5 million permissions for homes are subject to real “use it or lose it” powers before new homes are created?

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but again, I think he misrepresents what is in this new framework, with regard to local involvement and local engagement. He seeks to give the impression that there are no safeguards on development in the new framework, and that is not true. The new permanent presumption provides significant backing for development—absolutely. We want to introduce clear, rules-based policies, both for plans and for decision making, but development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and decisions on individual applications still have to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about local standards. Our proposals support our overall aim of making policy more rules-based to streamline the content of development plans. The framework still allows some local standards, where it makes sense to set them locally—for example, on design, parking and open space—but where we have national standards in building regulations, including in the forthcoming future homes and future building standards, which raise our ambition in this area, it does not make sense to allow duplication and variation across local areas.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned chalk streams, and again I want to push back. We have included explicit recognition of chalk streams as a feature of high environmental value, as I committed to doing during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Local plans will, as a result, have to identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas, such as by creating buffer zones or green corridors. We have set clearer expectations that development proposals will assess and mitigate adverse impacts on water quality, including in relation to chalk streams.

I thank the Minister for the statement, and for the support for getting our housing market going again, particularly when it comes to brownfield sites; proposals for many of them are still being held up right across the country. He says that he will not at this stage make NDMPs statutory. Many people across the sector would like him to do so, because of the extra certainty it would provide. When he talks about the risk and uncertainty of taking that approach, what does he mean? If he will revisit this question, when might he do so? What will he be looking at when he potentially makes the decision to revisit that question?

I do not have the time to go into incredible amounts of detail on why we did not choose to take a statutory approach to national development management policies. Suffice it to say that the approach carried considerable uncertainty and risks. There has been a long debate—I can see Members who served on the Bill Committee—about what a conflict between statutory NDMPs and a local development plan would mean in practice. We were concerned about the chilling effect that might have on the system as a whole, so we have decided to proceed, as I have said, with agile changes to national policy. I remind hon. Members—Opposition Members often complain about this—that national planning policy carries significant weight. Since our December reforms, an unprecedented 80% of major residential appeals relating to grey-belt land have been approved. That is the power of national policy in action, but we will keep the matter under review.

We do not have green belt in east Kent. We used to have something called farmland; it is now called blighted land, because it has been zoned for housing, but it is not being built on. House building in east Kent has virtually come to a grinding halt, and houses are not selling as a direct result of this Government’s policies. How many unbuilt-out housing consents have already been granted? Should we not be using those before we start taking further agricultural land for building?

I will say two things to the right hon. Gentleman. First, the draft framework we have published today continues to provide the protections for agricultural land that are in place in the NPPF as revised last December, including a preference that development be directed towards areas of poorer-quality agricultural land. On consented sites, he is absolutely right. We want to see more consented sites built out, and that is the whole purpose of our new homes accelerator, which we established to take forward those sites. We published a working paper on build-out transparency, but I am afraid that it remains the case that we have to oversupply consents into the system to drive up the number of houses delivered.

I agree with my hon. Friend that the housing crisis has become an emergency, but can I ask for detail on an issue that I have raised with him in the House before? He said that it is a default yes for suitable proposals for the development of land around rail stations. He knows that I have a number of sports grounds close to railway stations that might attract the attention of developers as a result of what he has said today. Those grounds are not just a green lung for south-east London, but provide vital access to sports for people from central London, Kent and East Sussex. Can we have an assurance from him that these sites will not be put under threat, and that owners will not put these grounds under lock and key, say that there is no demand for them, and start planning to build houses on them?

My hon. Friend is right that the new framework proposes a default yes to suitable proposals around train stations, particularly targeting well-connected train stations across the country, as I mentioned. He will know that in the revisions we made to the NPPF last December, we strengthened protections for playing fields. As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), although there is a new permanent presumption within settlements as part of this framework, development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and individual decisions on applications still have to be taken. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and discuss his particular concerns about playing fields.

As the Minister knows, in Wiltshire, speculative development is often approved without consideration of access to active travel routes, health provision, school places, and access to public transport, so that our residents can reach work or education. This leads to areas of extreme deprivation, caused, according to the Government’s own statistics, by a lack of skills and job opportunities. Rural housing can work, but only when it is genuinely plan-led, and when infrastructure keeps pace with housing. Will the Minister ensure that rural development is supported by its communities, and is for its communities, rather than villages being left to absorb growth without the services that they so desperately need?

There is a lot in the hon. Lady’s question, but let me say a couple of things. First, we have been clear as a Government that when new housing comes forward, it must be matched with new amenities and infrastructure. We strengthened the policies in the previous framework last year to provide for community infrastructure, but today’s draft framework consolidates and strengthens that even further. She will be interested in the new vision-led transport measures in the framework, again strengthening those provided for last year. We want the appropriate amenities and infrastructure to come with housing, because we want to create not just housing units, but thriving places and neighbourhoods for people to live.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his efforts to get the homes built that the country needs, particularly for young people, who face the prospect of never being able to afford a home of their own. I have two questions. First, does he think that where a site is earmarked in a local plan for development, the local planning authority should give permission for that development automatically? Of course, the details will have to be considered at the time, but there should be a presumption that such sites will be given planning permission when an application is made. Secondly, the draft local plan in Sheffield, as he knows, is mainly geared up to building on brownfield sites, but there are some proposals to build on greenfield sites to create the additional number of homes. He has laid out the golden rules for infrastructure development that will go alongside house building, but will he give the assurance that if a site in the local plan is on green belt, the planning authority has the right to turn down an application, if infrastructure will not be provided alongside the development?

My hon. Friend tempts me, I think deliberately, to comment on his local plan, which, for reasons that he will appreciate, I cannot do. On the general principles, there are many factors that need to be considered when planning committees, officers or elected members consider particular application, but we want to see greater weight given to applications on sites that are allocated in the development plan. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson). We want plan-led development. Local plans are the cornerstone of our planning system. That is why it is such a problem that we inherited a planning system where the coverage of up-to-date local plans is only a third. We are determined to drive up coverage of local plans, and to drive plans to adoption as quickly as possible.

When it comes to the green belt, through the changes that we made last year, we have set out a very clear sequential test for what local planning authorities need to do when they have exhausted brownfield development, densification, cross-boundary planning and co-operation with local authorities. When they do need to review green belt, they should start with the poorer-quality green belt—grey belt—in the first instance, if that is required to meet their housing need.

Within a mile of the well-connected stations of Radlett, Cuffley, Borehamwood, Potters Bar and Bushey there is pristine countryside that is treasured by local communities and prevents urban sprawl. The opening up of this green belt to a development free-for-all runs totally contrary to the promises made by the Labour party at the last election. What radius around those stations is envisioned in these proposals, and what will the Minister do to protect the character and integrity of existing villages and towns in my constituency and others up and down the country?

I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but it is absolutely incorrect to say that the draft framework proposes a free-for-all in relation to land around railway stations. As I have said, we want to establish, in principle, a default “yes” for development around railway stations within existing settlements, and to extend it to well-connected stations outside. That will provide clarity and confidence that these locations are suitable for growth, with the potential to unlock land for up to 1.8 million homes over the decades ahead. Alongside this, as I have said, we are proposing minimum densities to ensure that land is used effectively.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me for a specific radius. It is set out in the framework—[Interruption.] If he will allow me to reply, the definition set out in the framework is “within walking distance”, so about 800 metres. However, as with everything in this framework, we are consulting on what is the appropriate distance around stations, and I am more than happy to take his views and those of any other hon. Member views into account.

Order. I have a little aspiration that we will finish this statement by half-past 3, so short questions and short answers would be very helpful.

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am very pleased, as I know my constituents will be, to hear about the swift bricks. Ours is a city of nature lovers, and I know that people have been very concerned about BNG, which has been mentioned. I would like to understand a little more about how it has been determined that 0.2 hectares is the right area, particularly in relation to natural capital.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: BNG plays a vital role in protecting and restoring nature, while enabling us to build the homes that this country needs. The Government remain fully committed to it as an approach to development, but, as I hope hon. Members will recognise, this is a novel system that was introduced only last year. We have heard from developers, local authorities and ecologists that the system needs to work better for some of the smallest developments, and that there are particular challenges on brownfield land. That is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consulted earlier this year on updates to the system, and why we are today confirming that we will introduce that new exemption—and we think that 0.2 hectares is the right size for it. There is a suite of other simplifications for smaller and medium sites that are not exempted, and DEFRA will consult on whether any acceptable exemptions are appropriate for residential brownfield land.

In my constituency there is planning permission for over 2,000 new homes in and around the town centre alone, yet developers are not building those much-needed homes. What steps are the Government taking to tackle developers that are land banking instead of building homes, and are they continuing to refuse to introduce tougher “use it or lose it” powers in these planning reforms?

It is wrong to say that this is an area that we are overlooking. I refer the hon. Member to a working paper that sets out a series of proposals to get build-out transparency and accountability up. A delayed homes penalty, for instance, would act as a charge when development could be coming forward but is not. Those proposals are distinct from today’s draft framework, which does not deal with that issue, but I can assure him that it is very much a priority for me and for the Department.

I thank the Minister for his statement. In my constituency, many new homes have been built in places such as Ebbsfleet and Stone, and I am glad to announce that there are plans for many more, but it is fair to say that local infrastructure—including GP surgeries, Darent Valley hospital and local schools—has struggled to keep pace, and there have not been enough affordable homes. Can the Minister outline how new, clear policies on where and how we build will ensure that development is sustainable and linked to jobs and infrastructure, and that we have enough affordable homes?

I have visited the developments in my hon. Friend’s constituency that Ebbsfleet development corporation is taking forward. As I said in response to an earlier question, we as a Government are clear that new housing must be supported by appropriate infrastructure and amenities. Last year we made important changes to the framework to strengthen the provision of community infrastructure, and, as I have said, the draft framework consolidates and strengthens the support given to that provision, including public services. However, we know that there is more to do to ensure that the right infrastructure comes forward at the appropriate time, alongside the building of new homes.

As with business rates and the Budget, it might take a few days for it to be absolutely clear what is in today’s announcement, although I hope that it will not take quite as long as it did with the Budget. I think it possible that some things will be welcome, given what the Minister said about densification and brownfield, if that is accompanied—this would be consistent—by a rebalancing of the housing target formula, which resulted in a doubling of targets in places such as East Hampshire and many places in the far north-west and far north-east, and a reduction in parts of London and Birmingham. Will the Minister now revisit that formula?

No.

It is difficult to make blanket statements about individual development sites. There are many reasons why sites across the country are held up, but sometimes they are legitimate reasons to do with viability. As I have said, we are experiencing a housing market downturn, although we are hopefully coming out of it with the assistance of some of these policies. Viability is a challenge across the whole country and is particularly acute in places such as London, but where development could be coming forward and is viable but developers are not proceeding with it, we want to look at further measures on build-out to ensure that it does come forward. We are providing central Government support through the new homes accelerator to unlock the large strategic sites that have already received consent. That is the low-hanging fruit when it comes to bringing forward new homes in this Parliament.

The Minister knows that I share his enthusiasm for speeding up housing delivery, but that can only happen if we get the right infrastructure. He is aware, as I am, of the pressure around certain motorway junction upgrades, including at junction 10, which is adjacent to my constituency. Can he give me some reassurance that motorway junctions that are crucial to the upgrades that are required to deliver the housing that he so desires will not soon be scrapped?

I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. There is considerable pressure on the housing infrastructure budget and the projects that remain within it. I am aware that in respect of this case, which he has raised with me previously, a material amendment has been submitted and is being considered. Obviously I will not comment on that, but I think his point shows that the Government do provide significant amounts of funding support for land and infrastructure across the country to help to ensure that those homes can come forward in the right places, with the right infrastructure and transport connections.

I recently attended the launch of a development site for 32 new affordable family homes in Bournemouth town centre. That is fantastic, but we need much more of it, because there are still 535 children in temporary accommodation in my constituency, many of them under the age of 10. House prices and rent costs are higher than the national average, whereas wages are not, because the previous Government failed to get a grip on the housing crisis. I welcome this decisive action to build more homes. Will the Minister condemn the last Government’s failure to deal with this crisis and the hundreds of thousands of children we still see in temporary accommodation?

Absolutely, and we are taking concerted action across the Department, not least through the homelessness strategy that was published in recent weeks. At the heart of how we resolve the problem of temporary accommodation is building more affordable homes, particularly more social rented homes. That is precisely why the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme devotes 60% of its funding to social rented homes.

The Conservatives were right to abolish Whitehall-imposed mandatory housing targets, and Labour was wrong to bring them back. May I ask the Minister specifically about call-ins? Under the well-established system, the Secretary of State might have called in, on average, about 20 applications a year if they raised issues with national implications, and there was almost invariably a full public planning inquiry. Under Labour’s proposals, councils will have to notify the Secretary of State if they intend to refuse any application for more than 150 homes. The Secretary of State could then call it in before local councillors have even had a chance to vote on it. There would be no guarantee of a public inquiry, and the application could even be given to a planning inspector to deal with it behind closed doors by written representations—by letter—so that local people and their councillors would not have a chance to say anything at all. That is completely undemocratic, is it not? Why have a local plan at all?

I am afraid that I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Mandatory housing targets have an important role to play in a functioning housing and planning system, and we have seen the impact—in nosediving supply—of what happens when anti-supply changes are made to the NPPF. On the specific change that he references, yes, we are changing the referral criteria so that they apply not just to planning applications that might be accepted and that the previous Government wanted to ensure could be blocked, but to planning applications that might be refused and that we might want to see come forward.

This morning I accompanied my constituents Jacob and Mikey to No. 10 to make a heartfelt plea to the Prime Minister for accessible playgrounds. I welcome the Minister’s statement, especially the inclusion of play spaces and their importance for children and young people. Can he assure me that disabled children and their families will be consulted on how to make these play spaces accessible?

I want to mention again the advocacy and work that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) did on this subject through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill; he persuaded us to look at it very closely. The new policies on children’s play signal strong support for providing and safeguarding areas for children’s play, both through plan making and when dealing with development proposals. Importantly—my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) is right to reference this—they make it clear that local communities should be actively involved in the design of play areas, so that they are inclusive and reflect local needs.

The Government say that they are committed to green belt protection—in fact, the Minister has said as much at the Dispatch Box today—but the reality is set out in his statement, which says there will be a default “yes” to settlements around stations on green belt land. In my constituency of Esher and Walton, we have seven stations and lots and lots of green belt. What words can I use to reassure my constituents that that green belt is not under threat?

As I have said in response to previous questions, we made a series of changes to green belt land designation release in the NPPF last year. These changes have been carried over into the draft framework, with one substantive change, which is to enable appropriate development around well-connected train stations across the country, including in the green belt. What I would advise the hon. Lady to say to her constituents is that we should bring forward appropriate and appropriately dense development around existing public transport infrastructure.

I thank the Minister and his Department for confirming yesterday that Dudley has successfully cleared the first stage of Pride in Place assessment—the first step to unlocking £20 million over the next decade. Will he outline how the new planning reforms, Pride in Place funding and greater community powers will revitalise Dudley town centre, and can he confirm that any new infrastructure will use local materials from local businesses, such as Dreadnought Tiles, to boost the local economy?

There is support within the new framework to boost local and regional economies, and we want to encourage economic growth by giving substantial weight to the benefits of supporting business growth and to particular areas and sectors. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and ministerial colleagues to give her a better sense of how the different initiatives across the Department, including Pride in Place, will work for her area and across the country.

The Minister will be aware that in certain parts of the country the agricultural planning system has ground to a halt, preventing modernisation on farms, stifling investment and damaging British food security. I welcome today’s measures on biodiversity net gain, but may I ask him to go further by tackling Natural England’s barmy guidance on nutrient neutrality and preventing vexatious judicial reviews against planning applications, to free up the hundreds of millions of pounds in the system?

The solution to nutrient neutrality and other similar constraints is the environmental delivery plans delivered through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which the hon. Gentleman’s party voted against.

When I met local nature activists in Bracknell, they told me that swift bricks are used not just by swifts, but by house martins and sparrows. Sadly, they are not used by swallows—although this Swallow certainly welcomes them. As the Minister knows, I have been strongly calling for swift bricks, so I am really pleased to see that they will be a requirement in new developments. Does he agree that this demonstrates that bringing forward the housing that we need to address the housing crisis does not have to come at the cost of nature? If we get this right, we can make sure that there is fantastic access to nature, alongside the homes we so badly need.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is one of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have called for greater support for swift bricks, which we recognise are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. The new swift brick requirement in the framework will require all developments to include swift bricks in their construction, unless compelling technical reasons prevent their use or make them ineffective. This is a significant strengthening of the expectations already in place, and we expect the end result to be at least one swift brick in every new brick-built house, unless there are legitimate reasons why installation would not be appropriate.

In Stratford-on-Avon, previous changes to national planning policy wiped out the council’s five-year housing land supply almost overnight. Despite years of over-delivery, we did the right thing, and this has opened the door to a developer free-for-all. Will the Minister look again at the impact of these changes, and commit to restoring a genuinely plan-led approach that puts the allocation of housing back in the hands of councils and communities, rather than developers? Through their viability studies, developers are not delivering social housing or infrastructure.

I know the hon. Lady will take a keen interest in annex B of the framework, which deals with viability specifically and asks a range of questions. We want to ensure that we have a viability system that is working effectively, that is fair and that deals with the constraints that prevent development from coming forward, rather than being, as the National Audit Office and others have drawn attention to, abused by some developers to reduce rates of affordable housing and other obligations in section 106 agreements.

This is really about ensuring that we can balance national standards and local decision making. As a former chair of a planning committee, I seek reassurance on how we and local decision makers can hold developers to account on stalled sites. We absolutely need to get building on brownfield sites. We have over 5,000 permitted homes in Gravesham, but we need reassurance that the small pockets of beautiful green space in our urban areas are protected, so that we see development where it needs to be.

My hon. Friend is right, and the protections and provisions that were in the draft framework last year have been carried across. We want councils to be able to designate those spaces for their areas, but we also want to see development come forward in the right places. I think she alluded to a national scheme of delegation, and we will be taking forward our reforms to modernise planning committees that are in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. We will set out details of the national scheme of delegation, and consult on the draft regulations, early next year.

My constituents would have much more sympathy with the Minister if he could explain why, when it comes to house building, Leicester city’s target will go down by 31%, whereas Hinckley and Bosworth’s and north-west Leicestershire’s targets will go up by 59% and 74% respectively. It means that we have 10,000 houses proposed near Twycross, and thousands near Burbage and Barwell. What would he say to my constituents about the unfairness of the discrepancies between targets for city and brownfield sites, and targets for green-belt sites and agricultural land?

As I have said to other hon. Members in the past, housing targets, under the new standard method we have introduced, will increase in every metro area in the country with the exception of London, which was given a fantastical figure by the previous Government, because they applied the urban uplift—an entirely arbitrary 35%—to every London borough, not just the core centre.

Under the previous Conservative Government, there was significant building in Mickleover in Derby, yet the GP surgery that was promised alongside that development never materialised. Can the Minister outline how the Government’s new clearer planning policies, particularly on where development should take place, will ensure that future growth is genuinely sustainable and properly linked to the delivery of GP provision and other essential services and infrastructure?

I have referenced before the consolidation and strengthening of the provisions in the framework we published last year in terms of the provision of infrastructure, particularly public service infrastructure. It is local plans, primarily, that should address needs and opportunities around infrastructure, and identify what infrastructure is required and how it can be funded and brought forward, but the reforms we are making through the draft framework will make both plan making and decision making clearer and simpler. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss the particular challenges she is facing in her constituency.

Bramhall and Heald Green are facing huge numbers of development proposals in their area, and the Government are today proudly announcing their policy to presume approval of developments around rail stations to improve sustainable transport. Gatley and Heald Green stations have the highest rates of cancellations in the north-west, and there has been no Sunday service in Bramhall for over a year and a half. The Minister should know that these stations are serviced by Northern—coincidentally, it is in effect a Government-run company—so how can my constituents trust this Government when it comes to building sustainable communities?

The hon. Gentleman’s constituents can trust this Government because we are setting out—for consultation, as I continue to stress—a clear definition of what a well-connected station means. As I said in response to the shadow Minister, we have defined it as the top 60 major economic centres based on travel to work areas by GVA, and four trains an hour or two trains in one direction. This covers 60% of train stations across the country, with 40% that are not covered, but we welcome views through the consultation.

There is much to welcome in the Minister’s statement, and I would like to invite him to come and have a look at the opportunity for new housing around Shipley station. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on housing and care for older people, I particularly welcome the commitment in the NPPF to more accessible homes for older and disabled people. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), the Minister mentioned that 40% of new homes would be mandatory at M4(2) standards. Can he confirm that that is a baseline, and that the ambition is for planning authorities to go further and move towards 100% of all new homes?

I confirm to my hon. Friend that the 40% figure is a minimum, not a target. Our proposals recognise that accessibility needs are locally specific, and our changes ensure that necessary levels of accessible housing are provided, while providing authorities with the flexibility to maximise house building overall. Where needs are higher than the mandatory minimum, we are proposing that planning policies should reflect this.

The Minister has said that the Government want to double down on the brownfield-first approach, that they have a presumption in favour of development in urban areas and that they are committed to protecting the green belt. Neither I nor my constituents can square that with the reality of what is happening across Bromsgrove and the villages. My constituency is 89% green belt, but the housing target has increased by a staggering 85%, yet in adjacent Birmingham the housing target has decreased by over 30%. Local people are concerned not just about the erosion of the green belt, but about the lack of infrastructure. Over 5,000 local people have signed my petition expressing their concern about this approach. I want to work constructively with the Minister, so will he agree to meet me, together with the leader of Bromsgrove district council, to discuss the impact of this approach and forge a new path forwards?

I will meet the hon. Gentleman and his local authority leader—I am more than happy to set out the Government’s position on green-belt land designation and release—but I gently say to him and other Opposition Members that there is no way of building the volume of homes our country needs on brownfield land alone. There is not enough land on brownfield land registers, certainly not brownfield land that is in the right place and viable to meet that need. We do need to release more land, including green-belt land, but we are doing it in a fair way and starting with grey-belt land first.

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to tackling the housing crisis that we inherited. I have had many emails from people in Norwich about the need to build much-needed homes but also to protect our natural environment. As he probably knows, Norfolk is home to 10% of England’s chalk streams. He has touched on this, but can he provide reassurances to my constituents, and outline how this new policy will protect vital nature spots, like chalk streams?

We do want to provide greater protection for our precious chalk streams, which is why we have included explicit recognition of them in the framework. As I said in a previous answer, we will ensure that local plans identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas and set clearer expectations for development proposals in relation to them. The aim is to secure the consistent application of policy on these precious habitats. That will be supported by the roll-out of local nature recovery strategies, which will be able to map chalk streams and identify measures to enhance and improve them.

The Minister’s statement pins the blame for the housing crisis on the planning system, but we all know that there are many challenges facing the building sector: cost inflation, staff shortages made worse by Brexit, issues with housing association funding, and the problem of land banking, with all these planning permissions not being built out. Instead of the Minister pitting nature protection against house building—if he really wants to increase housing availability, affordability and quality, as he said in the statement that he does—will he set a social housing target, invest far more in directly supporting social housing and ensure that all building meets nature protection and climate crisis challenge goals?

I have never pitted, and I will not pit, development against the environment. This Government have sought a win-win for both, which is precisely what part 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill does. The hon. Member is wrong to suggest that all this Government are doing is planning reform. Planning reform is a necessary but not sufficient measure, and we are undertaking plenty of others, including £39 billion for the new social and affordable housing programme.

I particularly welcome the comments about social and affordable homes in rural communities, and the commitments around swift bricks and chalk streams. In many areas, including in my county of Norfolk, the environment so often is the economy, whether that is through farming or tourism. Does the Minister recognise that one of the barriers to growth in many rural areas is capacity in district council planning authorities and the recruitment crisis? Will there be any specific measures on improvements to planning in rural areas?

I would say two things in response to that question. The Government have already allocated significant funding for planning capacity and capability in local departments. The Chancellor in the recent Budget allocated another £48 million. We are making £8 million of that available today to support local authorities with development management. In general, this framework will give a major boost to rural economies. We are making it very clear that development that supports farm modernisation and food production, and that allows rural businesses to grow, should be supported.

This is a dark day for Shropshire’s green belt—places like Albrighton and Shifnal in my constituency—for the remaining green belt in the borough of Telford and Wrekin, in places like Preston upon the Weald Moors, Edgmond, Bratton and Church Aston. Another time in this place, the Minister referenced the number of local authority voids—both Conservative and Labour, to be fair—and voids held by social landlords. What more can be done to release those voids so that we can take the pressure off Shropshire’s green belt?

The right hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the potential to do more on voids and on empty homes more generally, although councils already have quite significant powers to bring empty homes back into use. I say very gently to him, building on my comments about the need to release appropriate green-belt land where necessary to meet housing need, that my concern is less about the instances he described and more about the 1.3 million people languishing on social housing waiting lists and, in particular, the 170,000 children who are today homeless and living in temporary accommodation. We have to build more homes. That requires green-belt land, as well as brownfield land, to be developed.

I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware that Harlow is home to a number of builders, construction workers and entrepreneurs. How will the proposals he has set out today make a difference for Harlow’s hard-working builders, construction workers and entrepreneurs?

The second half of my statement—I hope my hon. Friend will have noticed—is a series of measures, interventions, policy and regulatory easements to get small and medium-sized house builders back on the pitch in a serious way, alongside councils and community-led housing. We need more providers on the pitch, building a diversified house building market. I hope that SME house builders across the country will welcome the package.

I am pleased that the Government have listened to my calls, and to those of other Liberal Democrats, to mention the explicit protection of chalk stream rivers in the statement. The Minister mentions the consistent application of policy. Will he confirm whether those policies might include, for example, exclusion zones around chalk streams to protect them fully as unique and irreplaceable habitats?

I am more than happy to clarify and provide a bit more detail, which will hopefully reassure the hon. Lady. Through the changes we have made in explicitly recognising chalk streams, we are now clear that local plans must identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas. That might include creating buffer zones or green corridors around them, as well as and alongside clearer expectations for developments, so that in decision making they are properly protected.

If the Minister is serious about, in his words, “doubling down” on brownfield first, will he look again at the Campaign to Protect Rural England report, which was put together with academic rigour, which identified enough land in England alone for 1.4 million homes on brownfield sites? If he looks again at that seriously, he will find that it is right and will mandate to build on those sites first before a single farm, field or piece of green-belt land is built on.

I am afraid—I have been very open about saying it before—that I have never been convinced by that CPRE research. As to the general thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s question of whether we want to see more development on previously developed land, absolutely. I stress once again to hon. Members the radical nature of the proposals that we have brought forward today with regard to brownfield land. We are proposing development support in principle within settlements as a whole, with a permanent presumption in favour of development on brownfield land. Opposition Members keep challenging us to go further on brownfield. There is no further. This is dialling up brownfield to the extreme and it will ensure that we get brownfield applications in, as well as green-belt land release and designation where necessary.

My column for the Stockport Express is this week encouraging my constituents to respond to the Stockport local plan consultation—the deadline is Sunday—because the Government’s doubling of the housing target for Stockport will have an impact on our green belt and our community, and I am really keen that they have their say. Anyone serious knows we need more homes to be built, but I absolutely understand the worries of my constituents. They are thinking about the impact the doubling of the housing target will have on roads, GP appointments, schools and, in particular, our green spaces. One of the problems with the Government’s approach is the sequencing. Constituents see the downside of large-scale developments without the needed public transport. Would the Minister support minimum infrastructure targets before and alongside minimum housing targets?

I refer the hon. Lady to the comments I have already made on how the new draft framework further consolidates and strengthens the expectations around infrastructure provision. Vision-led transport, which is now hardwired through the framework, will make a difference to the challenges she poses, but she is absolutely right that we want to see infrastructure up front, alongside new homes being delivered.

The Minister’s statement referenced a presumption in favour of sustainable development on certain brownfield sites. Will applications for those developments still have to undertake a traffic and environmental impact assessment? If, for example, the highway network were found to be inadequate, would the local planning authority be able to refuse that application?

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman. It sounds to me—I may be guessing here—that he has a specific constituency matter that he might like to discuss with me, and I would be happy to do so.

The Minister referred in his statement to the housing crisis we face, yet there are an estimated 1.4 million homes with planning permissions that are yet to be built. We know that developers favour land banking—waiting until the situation is so acute that they can then deliver those homes for more money, or renege on their commitment to deliver social homes by claiming that the cost pressures mean that they can no longer be delivered. We have seen that in my constituency. Does the Minister therefore agree that “use it or lose it” planning permission would get houses built, and that he does not have a housing crisis, but a building crisis?

There are real challenges with housing delivery. I refer the hon. Lady to the proposals on build-out generally that we have outlined and sought feedback on. She is absolutely right in the thrust of her question: we are overly reliant as a country on a handful of volume developers. That is precisely why we are encouraging other providers to get in the game through the package we have announced today for small and medium-sized house builders, so that we can have the diversified house building market that we need to bring forward delivery in the volumes the country requires.

The Minister must accept that house building targets are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. House building targets are based on a naive delusion that private developers will collude with Government in driving down the price of their final product, which surely cannot be the case. Cornwall is not a nimby location; we have grown faster than almost anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Despite almost trebling our housing stock in the past 60 years, the housing need of local communities is greater now. Will the Minister therefore consider that some local authorities, where simply setting targets is not the answer, should be given the tools to meet need rather than developers’ greed?

The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion, or variants of it, many times. We have a slight difference of opinion over the role of housing targets; I think they are necessary and play an important role. However, we are giving local planning authorities the tools they need—specific to the hon. Gentleman’s area, that includes changes in the draft framework on rural, social and affordable housing and the wider grant funding support that we are bringing forward through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme.

I welcome the explicit protections for chalk streams—something I have long campaigned for, as the River Itchen runs through my constituency. Will the Minister also guarantee that local plans will be strengthened by the NPPF overhaul and that community input will not be undermined?

We want to see more community input, particularly upstream in the development of local plans. The Government are committed to driving local plans to adoption; we want to see universal coverage of local plans. The clear rules-based policies in this draft framework will help with the new plan-making system that we announced just weeks ago to ensure that we can drive up coverage in this Parliament.

I welcome the ambition to build much-needed homes, especially social and affordable housing. However, in places such as Cherwell district in my constituency, the problem is not planning permissions. Under Liberal Democrat control, the council has already consented more than 10,000 homes; though consented, those homes have not yet been built, because the real blockage is delivery. Homes are not built because of a failure of grid capacity, supply chain costs and land banking by developers. These problems, which are outside the council’s control, now undermine its five-year housing land supply. The build-out consultation, which the Minister referred to, closed in the summer. Will he now commit to holding developers to account, once permission is granted, with real “use it or lose it” powers and to developing core infrastructure first, so that approved homes actually get built?

I was very clear that there is more that needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited from the Conservatives. We need greater focus on reform and delivery; that will come next year. The regulatory and planning changes that will be made today—the culmination of 17 months of work to transform our planning system—are absolutely vital. We will come forward in due course with a response to proposals around build-out measures.