The Government's Planning and Infrastructure Bill is one of the most consequential and far reaching pieces of legislation seen so far in this Parliament. The Bill marks a wholesale reformation of our planning system, paving the way for almost uncontrolled and wholly inappropriate suburban sprawl across our precious Green Belt.
This is not to say that the Bill doesn't have its merits. I do recognise that we need to see reform of elements of how we approach national infrastructure development and I do want to see national government driving forward nationally significant infrastructure projects. However, in their push to build as many new homes as possible, the Government appears to have neglected to make provision for the accompanying local infrastructure meaning that we will inevitably see increased demand for, and pressure on, GP appointments, dentists, school places, transport links and so on. The Bill does not address this concern.
This is why I am so strongly opposed to the removal of the ability of local planning authorities to decide on individual planning applications. The Government is asking us to sacrifice our Green Belt and the unique character of our towns and villages to meet targets that I believe are undeliverable. We do need housing, but it must be the right sort in the right places and cannot come at the expense of our local communities and settlements.
At Report Stage, I was also keen to support several important amendments which would have somewhat improved this flawed piece of legislation.
The first of these was New Clause 39, which would have banned the development of solar farms on the highest-quality agricultural land. This matters directly to us and I have heard directly from constituents concerned about losing surrounding green spaces to large-scale solar projects. It is entirely possible to support renewable energy while still protecting the best farmland from development. With food security more important than ever, we must prioritise the land that feeds us.
The second was New Clause 44, which would finally activate Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 - a step that would require new developments to meet proper drainage standards before planning permission is granted. Anyone who has seen the impact of flash flooding in parts of Surrey will understand why this mattered. If the Government insists on imposing high housing targets on our area, it must also ensure that new homes are built to withstand the realities of modern weather patterns.
The third was New Clause 87, which called for more of England’s chalk streams to be granted protected status. Chalk streams are among the most delicate freshwater ecosystems in the world, and we are fortunate to have several nearby. These habitats are rare and globally significant, but they’ve been routinely overlooked when it comes to formal protections. I had hoped that this Bill would have been a chance to change that.
Unfortunately none of these amendments made it into the Bill before Labour MPs pushed it through at Third Reading, sending it to the Lords for further consideration. I am disappointed that the Government have not listened to valid concerns over this legislation and more disappointed still that the sensible, pragmatic amendments put down by my Conservative colleagues were not endorsed by the Government and incorporated into the Bill.
The key point to take away from this is that Labour's wholesale planning reforms have now made it through the House of Commons and we all need to begin thinking urgently about how the new, top down approach to planning is going to impact in our towns and villages - and how best we can fight back against the spate of development that will inevitably follow.
