The cry to go ‘further and faster’ was heard again in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill debate on the 24th of March this year where Angela Rayner scorned the many who 'would have said, “Stop there and allow the reforms to bed in.’
Sadly, this Labour Government keeps showing it has no time to listen, reflect, assess or amend. My colleague, Lewis Cocking MP (Broxbourne) (Con) reflected,
‘At his first Prime Minister’s Question Time in July last year, I asked the Prime Minister to reassure my constituents that they would have a meaningful say over the new development in the green belt in their area. He said that the Government “will work with communities”—but this Bill could not be further from that promise.’
We know this Labour Government also promised to work with our farmers and with businesses – time and again, they show us their actions do not match their words.
While I can support some of the principles, aims and ambitions of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, key areas of this Bill leave me with serious concerns. I do believe it is vital the Labour Government works to reform elements of how we, as a nation, approach national infrastructure development and I recognise the need, where appropriate, to green-light nationally significant infrastructure projects to achieve economic growth – something the Government has so far only managed to stall.
We must also make sure that, alongside major infrastructure projects, we get the local infrastructure right that impacts our communities directly. With every housing development and population increase, there comes increased demand for, and pressure on, GP appointments, dentists, school places, transport links and so on. It is vital essential local infrastructure is delivered to support these new homes.
I therefore have significant reservations about the removal of councillors’ ability to vote on individual applications, the disproportionate and targeted hikes for house building targets in rural areas, building on the green belt under the guise of grey belt and the removal of protections for villages. Yes, we need housing but the right housing, in the right places and in the right numbers. We must not lose our rural identity and our rural character to overdevelopment and a constant flow of mass housing and infrastructure projects.
In areas that include protected landscapes and national parks like our constituency here in East Grinstead and Uckfield where we have 40% building constraints, government-imposed housing targets do not take this into consideration. This means all new housing has to go into the bits that are not protected, increasing the housing pressures on what is essentially green-belt land and
‘the grey belt, which was sold to the public as a few abandoned garage forecourts, has now been exposed as the Trojan horse we predicted it would be. Although not directly part of this Bill, it clearly interacts directly with it. It has been described as a death knell for the green belt due to the removal of parts of the definitions and protections of villages. Villages can now merge together or into nearby towns.
Kevin Hollinrake MP, Shadow Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, speaking for the Opposition in the debate went on to share further concerns that,
‘the imposition of strategic planning will be used as a vehicle to force rural authorities to absorb urban housing need. This is of particular concern in many rural areas, given the disproportionately high increases in targets for rural locations. The Secretary of State has increased the national target for house building by 50%, so the average rural resident might expect that their local housing target has increased by a similar amount, but that is not the case. According to the House of Commons Library, the targets for major urban conurbations are up by 17% on average, while the targets in mainly rural areas have increased by 115%.’
This all comes as part of the drive, by this Government, to build 1.5 million homes, but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has already forecast that the government will fail to deliver its manifesto pledge and fall short of that figure.
Through this Bill, the Government is going further by 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. Local voices must play a key role in any planning decision, not just Whitehall’s.
I am also concerned about the Government’s plans in the Bill to require the consideration of ‘bodies which represent the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups.’ I believe it is completely wrong for the Government to require engagement with such groups while restricting the ability of those elected by local voters to be involved in the planning process.
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.
You may also be interested in reading:
Mims Davies MP Statement on Nature Friendly Planning | Mims Davies
