PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 15 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Yesterday marked the ninth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire—a day for remembrance and for sombre reflection. The 72 residents who so tragically lost their lives will never be forgotten. My thoughts are with the survivors, bereaved families and all those affected, and I know that they have the deepest sympathies of the whole House. We accepted the inquiry’s findings last year, and we will take forward action on all 58 recommendations. We are determined that nothing like this will ever happen again.

I thank the Minister for his comments about Grenfell. I welcome the legislation that the Government have introduced to lower the voting age to 16, and to make it easier for people to register to vote, but has he considered the benefits for increased participation in elections of adding a “none of the above” option on all ballot papers? This change could be made without primary legislation.

The Government are very interested indeed in increasing participation in elections, and I know from personal experience that the biggest way to do that is to increase campaigning, because that increases turnout. Beyond that, the Government have already piloted flexible voting pilots at the May 2026 elections; we tested early voting, and the use of non-traditional places to vote. Also, the Democratic Engagement Fund is providing £2.5 million to support local projects that encourage more people to vote. Of course, we want to look at all proposals for getting people voting, because that is central to the efficiency and effectiveness of our democracy.

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Sir James Cleverly.

May I echo the words of the Secretary of State, nine years on from the terrible fire at Grenfell? It is incredibly important that we learn the lessons from that tragedy and ensure that people are protected in their home.

Labour says that 16 and 17-year-olds are mature enough to vote, but in a written answer to me, it also says that 16 and 17-year-olds are not mature enough to serve on juries, because that is “an adult duty”. It says that 16 and 17-year-olds should vote, but should not play on their phone after the Government-defined bedtime of 8.30 in the evening. These are just two examples from the list of inconsistencies triggered by Labour’s “votes at 16” policy. The only consistent thing about that policy is the blatant party political self-interest, isn’t it? [Laughter.]

I am not sure about the right hon. Gentleman’s last point; I think the laughter across the Chamber probably answers that one for him. Of course, 16 and 17-year-olds were able to vote in some elections in parts of the United Kingdom while he was in government. If he had really felt that 16 and 17-year-olds should not be able to vote anywhere, he would have done something about it. It is only right that we standardise the system, so that people of that age can vote in all elections across the country. I, for one, welcome the increase in the franchise, and the encouragement of more people to participate. It is their country too, and they deserve a say. I hope that young people under the age of 18 see the Conservatives who are trying to deny them the vote, and will remember that at the ballot box in the future.

Travellers built an unauthorised development in Willows Green in my constituency over a bank holiday weekend. I wrote to the Secretary of State about this, and his reply amounted to little more than a hand-wringing word salad. If he is serious about ending the abuse of retrospective planning in Essex and elsewhere, why will he not take up the proposals that we have put forward and end the “build first and apply later” culture?

That is exactly what the Government are doing. We are looking at how we can tackle those developers who go ahead and build and then seek planning consent retrospectively. It is not acceptable. We have put more money into councils, so that they can fund building control functions, which were severely underfunded by the Government when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That gives councils more power to take precisely the action that he is calling for. He had 14 years to do this, but he did not—so we are doing it for him.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his constructive engagement on the new towns programme, and on Tempsford in particular. It helped to inform our approach, including to the decision that new town proposals will contribute to meeting the identified housing need of relevant authorities in all instances. We are assessing options for delivery vehicles across the proposed sites, with a view to ensuring that each is best placed to drive delivery and secure essential infrastructure in a timely manner.

I thank the hon. Member for raising that important issue. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 goes some way towards addressing it, but I highlight that the Government are pushing ahead with high-street rental auctions, which are helping to bring long-term empty shops back into use.

The cheer across the House is a second reminder for me of the importance of coastal communities; the first reminder came when I responded to the Adjournment debate in the week before last. The Government are committed to mayoral strategic authorities having the fiscal tools to drive good growth in these areas. We have recently consulted on extending those power to FSAs, and will publish a response shortly.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in the process of establishing the greater Cambridge development corporation. We will set out further details, as we did just a few days ago, about its development management powers, its planning powers and the specific sites that it will look at.

Rural housing availability is in crisis, and all the tenants of an estate near Haltwhistle in my constituency, many of whom are elderly tenants in their 70s and 80s, received section 21 notices a week before the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 came into effect. In a rural community like that, there simply is not similar housing nearby. It is the dismantling of a rural community. Will the Minister therefore meet me to discuss the support he can offer for constituents and the further steps we can take to stop rural communities being victimised by these practices?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I appreciate fully his concern about the potential mass eviction of his constituents. It is precisely so that private tenants can enjoy greater security, including the growing number of older people who now rent their homes, that we abolished section 21 no-fault evictions. I am happy to meet him to discuss the case further and what more support we might provide.

We meet a range of stakeholders through the water delivery taskforce. I understand that, in response to Canterbury’s local plan consultation, the Environment Agency has recommended close liaison between the local authority and South East Water to ensure that planned housing growth is located where additional water is available to supply new development.

In 2022, my constituents at No. 1 London Road in Newcastle-under-Lyme were told that urgent action was needed due to fire safety concerns over the building’s cladding. It is now 2026 and, four years later, that urgent action is yet to begin. Can the Minister set out what steps she will take to ensure that the Building Safety Regulator functions effectively and does not create greater risk through significant delays—delays that have a huge impact on those directly impacted in Newcastle-under-Lyme and across the country?

I know that my hon. Friend has been working hard to support his constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme on these important issues. I am happy to meet him, but let me also reassure him that work to improve the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is ongoing and is bearing fruit.

Many councils, especially Brighton and Hove, with hundreds of acquisitions since 2017, are doing their best to buy, as well as build, their supply of new council housing. More family homes can be provided, and the speed of the benefits gives it a different Treasury business case. Will the Secretary of State help me win the Chancellor’s support for the idea of a massive, new dedicated “buy the supply” fund for councils?

Funding is already available for councils to acquire new market homes for social and affordable housing through our social and affordable homes programme. They can obviously also rely on section 106 contributions and the local authority housing fund, the fourth round of which makes £950 million available for councils to acquire homes for better-quality temporary accommodation.

National parks and natural landscapes provide huge benefits to people’s health and wellbeing, and to biodiversity and the economy. Can the Minister tell me what steps we can take through the next iteration of the national planning policy framework to ensure that the aforementioned benefits are not undermined when infrastructure projects must be progressed?

We continue to target a win-win for both development and nature. I am more than happy to sit down with my hon. Friend to discuss how the NPPF contributes to that objective.

Outrageously, today the Government have stripped Epping Forest district council of the sole local right to determine major planning applications. That means that my constituents will have major planning decisions taken by central Government and not by our local council. Epping Forest district is largely green belt, and we are already under threat from speculative housing applications, farmland being sacrificed for solar plants and the Labour Government arbitrarily reclassifying green belt as so-called grey belt. Will the Secretary of State step in and reverse this awful planning policy decision, which is a complete affront to local democracy?

I do not intend to reverse the decision; I made the decision. The hon. Member’s local authority is one of nine that have been designated for poor performance, just as the previous Government designated local authorities when they fell below the required standards in their planning processes.

Sadly, the recent closures of family-run businesses, such as Scent from Dudley, Black Star Ghanaian product and Family Bargains hardware in Dudley, are symptomatic of a wider trend of high street shopfronts closing. What steps is the Minister taking to speed up high street regeneration by bringing empty shops back into use, and will he visit Dudley town high street to see what else we can do?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I will point to two things: first, later this year we will bring forward a high street strategy backed by at least £150 million; and secondly, as I said earlier, we are pushing ahead with the high street rental auctions programme, which is already seeing empty shops being brought back into use.

How will the Minister stop developers using viability assessments to wriggle out of providing affordable homes for communities such as mine in Westmorland, where an agreement for 12 affordable houses to be delivered in Allithwaite near Grange-over Sands has been torn up and the council has no power to stop it? Will he help us?

We think it is right that developers can use site-by-site viability assessments, as the alternative where viability challenges are acute is that we get no homes coming forward at all. We have consulted, in the recent consultation on the NPPF, on standardised inputs to viability, and we will set out further steps in due course.

Leaseholders at Southend’s Meridien Point are trapped in an unbearable financial situation, as a result of an internal defects bill of £3 million, and a £450,000 fight against the building developer. Their block is 18 metres in height, and they are not entitled to funding for the support that they desperately need. They have been offered just £50,000 towards their legal fees by Homes England. How can we look at existing funding criteria for mid-rise buildings, and encourage Homes England to fully support leaseholders in taking on well-resourced developers?

Buildings between 11 and 18 metres may be able to enter the cladding safety scheme, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter further.

How can it be justified for a unitary authority to be formed that rips the waterside away from the New Forest, and places it under the control of Labour-dominated Southampton, when the building blocks of the new unitary authorities were stated by the Government to be the existing areas covered by district and borough councils?

I thank the Minister for his decision about the continued and ongoing failings by Cherwell district council regarding a major planning application. Given that Banbury has a huge and desperate housing need, will he agree to meet me to discuss how we can fix that, despite the council?

I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the housing challenges in his part of the country.

I am leading the campaign to have Eastbourne pier registered as an asset of community value in order to safeguard its future. Will the Government back the campaign to ensure that Eastbourne pier continues to stand strong?

Having served as a council leader, I know just how important community assets are, and I am happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss the matter further.

My hon. Friend will know how enthusiastic I am for a Thames Valley foundation strategic authority covering Berkshire, Oxfordshire and Swindon, but he will also know of my concerns about a spatial development strategy being imposed on us using a different, larger geography. Does he share my concern that that would undermine devolution before it even started?

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s robust views on this matter. There are a range of views about the right geographies for spatial development strategies. The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), and I are looking at all the consultation responses we have received, and we will make decisions on the full basis of having those fed in.

Further to the Minister’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), will he take the opportunity of the new NPPF to make it absolutely clear that if someone wilfully ignores—not inadvertently, but deliberately and wilfully—the need for planning consent, they will not subsequently get retrospective permission?

We will not rule out retrospective planning applications of any kind—I think residents across the country who build a conservatory and then make an application, having forgotten to submit the paperwork, would take issue with that. There is a specific issue of intentional unauthorised development, and we are looking at that through the NPPF. I recently had a meeting with a large group of Members from across the House, including Front-Bench Members, and we discussed possible options that we could use to bear down on the practice we are seeing, which is a new business model that exploits a particular set of challenges.

Last week we held interviews for the chair of our Pride in Place neighbourhood board in Redditch. Will the Minister join me in thanking all those who put their name forward and encourage all residents in Greenlands and Woodrow to take part in the scheme, which will see the largest single financial investment in my town in my entire lifetime?

I join my hon. Friend in recognising the significant investment for his area. The Pride in Place programme, rolled out by the Government, is our commitment to devolution, and we are investing in areas that have been ignored for far too long.

Will the Minister for Housing and Planning review the 2,500 square metre threshold for edge of town centre and out of town centre planning applications and conduct an assessment of their impact on the high street, particularly through the lens of supermarkets setting up things like key cutting and shoe repair kiosks, which decimate our high streets, as has recently happened in Princes Risborough?

If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with further details about the matter, I will of course consider it.