“The Opposition have three fairly simply tests to apply to the amendments and the Bill as a whole. First, does this deliver the required reform of our administrative state—the planning process, statutory undertakers, decision makers and all those who play a part—to ensure the swift delivery of infrastructure? Secondly, does this create the necessary incentives for host communities to support and embrace the opportunities that development offers? Thirdly—and most critically, we think, having undertaken many planning reforms during our time in office—does this get the market building the 1.5 million new homes that already have planning permission? The entirety of the Government’s target already has consent, with no further loss of green belt or environmental impacts.
It fails in the eyes of homebuyers—the many people who aspire to get on the property ladder for the first time. It fails in the eyes of our farmers, who were hoping it would make it easier to create the infrastructure that would make our farming and food sector more efficient. It fails in the eyes of the developers, who are talking about packing up and taking their investment abroad because the UK market is so poor at the moment. It fails in the eyes of the builders, who see no measures in the Bill to address the shortfalls they all face.
It fails in the eyes of the travelling public, who have watched this Government cancel projects such as the expansion of the A12, which was set to support the delivery of thousands more homes. And it fails in the eyes of lovers of nature, because for all that has been said, there is still a grave lack of clarity about how the measures in the Bill will support the ambitions we all have to balance the delivery of new homes and infra- structure with the needs of a nature-depleted country, to protect the natural environment that we all cherish. The Government signalled before they even embarked on this legislation that their intention was to reduce green-belt protections, which raises the suspicion that this is not a holistic agenda; it is about making it as easy and cheap as possible to build on the green belt, without the strategic underpinning that delivers the homes and infrastructure that our nation needs.”
David Simmonds MP, our Shadow Minister (Levelling Up, Housing and Communities) in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill debated on Thursday 13 November 2025.
Protecting and restoring nature remains a key priority for me, the Conservative Party and the British public and, like many of my constituents, I share the concerns that have been repeatedly raised regarding this Labour Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the potential impacts it will have our local area and environment. As I mentioned in my previous statements which you can read here:
Mims Davies MP Statement on the Planning & Infrastructure Bill | Mims Davies
Mims Davies MP Statement on Planning and Infrastructure Bill - Nature | Mims Davies
I am completely against this Labour Government’s war on rural England; it has already overseen the implementation of the family farm tax, withdrawn the Rural Services Delivery Grant and axed the Sustainable Farming Incentive and is now aiming to remove local democratic accountability and hushing local voices while introducing an average doubling—a 100 per cent increase—of housebuilding targets for predominantly rural areas.
Let me be clear; I absolutely recognise the need to build more homes and unlock a fairer and more aspirational society so everyone, especially our young people, can have a stake and I am proud the Conservatives delivered 2.8 million homes across England during our 14 years in government, ensuring more households now own their own home. So, I do support some of the principles, aims and ambitions of the Bill, much of which builds on the work of the last Government, however key areas of this Bill leave me with grave concerns.
While it is vital the Government works to reform elements of how we, as a nation, approach national infrastructure development and housebuilding, this cannot come at all costs. Like the many, many constituents who have written to me about this issue, I am very worried this Bill could fundamentally and irrevocably alter the character of our towns, our villages, and our natural environment. While I fully support the need to build more housing, I reiterate it must be done in the right places, and with proper consultation and consent from the communities affected. I completely agree with my colleague, Kit Malthouse MP, when he said in the debate,
Far too often…villages and towns feel as if planning is something that is done to them. They dread the land promoter showing up to ram some inappropriate planning through. Some of that compromise can be about beauty, and I lament the fact that the design standards were taken out of the NPPF and that that word is not used… People would be more than happy for developers to build villages …if they look beautiful and fit in. Unfortunately, we get the same ersatz development that everybody else gets around the country.
I have significant reservations about the Bill’s provisions for the removal of councillors’ ability to vote on individual applications as well as the disproportionate and targeted hikes for housebuilding targets in rural areas, building on the green belt under the guise of grey belt and the removal of protections for villages.
I understand the Campaign to Protect Rural England, a very respected independent charity, has identified enough brownfield land in England alone for 1.4 million homes. Indeed, it was said in the debate the CPRE has also pointed out there is already planning permission for 770,000 new houses on brownfield land so I was pleased when Greg Smith MP asked the current Housing Minister,
Why…the Government persist in rejecting their Lordships’ amendments on this matter, against the advice of the CPRE?
The Shadow Minister, on behalf of the Official Opposition, later stated that,
We would choose to develop brownfield first. We seek the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites, including here in our capital city, rather than intruding on the green belt, which is critical for nature, is important for the health of human beings and for leisure and is often a site of sports facilities and agriculture, supporting the lives of our communities. That is another area where, sadly, this legislation falls far short.
Through this Bill, the Government is transferring powers away from local councillors and towards central and regional government regardless of the wishes of local people. Considering that 96 per cent of planning applications are already decided by officers and 90 per cent of applications are approved, I fear this is the wrong approach to reforming the planning system. This Bill risks eroding trust in the planning system and widening the gulf between the Government and local people. This is why I and my Party are clear local voices must continue to play a key role in any planning decision, not just Whitehall’s.
so many elements of the Bill incorporate a tendency to centralisation. The lack of community-level accountability and lack of ability for local residents to have their say about what is happening in their area—for example, on assets of community value—remains a fundamental concern. If we want those communities to embrace development and new homes, they need to be able to see the benefits and opportunities that a development will bring to their lives.
David Simmonds MP, Shadow Minister (Levelling Up, Housing and Communities)
This all comes as part of the drive, by this Labour Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million home but, unsurprisingly, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, alongside key industry experts, has already forecast the government will fail to deliver this manifesto pledge, and fall short of that figure.
My colleagues in the Shadow Housing, Communities and Local Government team, led by Sir James Cleverly MP, have worked hard across both houses to push the Labour Government to improve this Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Ultimately, however, I feel, along with my constituents, that the bill fails to balance the need to protect nature and the need to streamline the planning process. There is still a distinct lack of clarity about how the measures in the Bill will support the ambitions to balance the delivery of new homes and infrastructure with the needs to protect the natural environment that we all cherish.
For example, on chalk stream protections, my colleague, Kit Malthouse MP pointed out that while he understood,
the undertaking the Minister is giving… he will recognise that all of this is guidance; it does not preclude planning decisions that will impact on chalk streams. Given that he is set on his course, which we understand, and his appreciation of the fact that the amendment was proposed in the spirit of addressing the lack of any other sort of protection for chalk streams, will he reassure us that the intention in the planning guidance is to give chalk streams the same sort of protection as was put in place for, for example, veteran trees, which are deemed to be irreplaceable? That is the highest level of protection in planning guidance—I think I introduced this as Planning Minister. In that way, only in very exceptional circumstances could permission be granted for development that would impinge on chalk streams.
When discussing Amendment 40 on restricting the environmental impacts that could be addressed through an environmental delivery plan, Dr Savage MP spoke for many rural MPs of all stripes when she said,
There is an argument—and I accept it—that EDPs could be successfully applied to certain issues, but there is also a real scepticism about their use, particularly with regard to individual habitats and species.
The Wildlife and Countryside Link states that
“some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere. Once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely ever to return.”
When the amendments returned to the House of Commons on the 13th of November, the Labour Government put down motions to disagree, meaning they did not support the amendments despite some having significant cross-party support. I recognise how important the content of these amendments, particularly in the form of Lords amendments 38 and 40 were to the constituents who contacted me about them, so I am happy to assure you I and my Conservative colleagues voted No to the Government’s motions, or, in other words, to support both amendments made by the Lords. Unfortunately, the Government used their super majority to crush any chance of these amendments passing.
It is now for my colleagues in the House of Lords to challenge the Government to make this Bill fit for purpose. Having had its third reading in the House of Commons, I will be sure to pass on your strength of feeling to my colleagues in the second chamber and will, of course, do all I can to continue to stand up for local people and local voices.
I am providing the link to the full debate transcript below so you can read for yourself the arguments put for and against the Lords’ Amendments. I was very interested in the debate around undeveloped consents and the concerns about Amendment 1 which relates to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of changes to national policies. on more general topics, including major infrastructure projects and think many of my constituents will be as well.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill - Hansard - UK Parliament
