Latest news with #ChrisHinchliff
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
No 10 blocked nature concessions in planning bill amid Labour rebellion, sources say
Downing Street and the Treasury intervened to stop any concessions in the planning bill, after pro-housing MPs voiced anger over a Labour rebel amendment that attempted to strengthen nature protections in England. The Guardian has been told that ministers drew up amendments to the bill last week in an attempt to head off the anger of wildlife charities and rebel Labour MPs amid a backlash against the bill. Two sources with knowledge of the discussions said they had been expecting the amendments to be put in the Commons this week. But the amendments never appeared, after No 10 and the Treasury intervened. On Tuesday evening MPs voted 306 to 174, a majority of 132, to approve the planning and infrastructure bill at third reading. The housing minister Matthew Pennycook told the Commons: 'This landmark bill will get Britain building again, unleash economic growth and deliver on the promise of national renewal. 'It is critical in helping the government achieve its ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5m safe and decent homes in England in this parliament.' On Monday night, 15 Labour MPs rebelled against the government to back an amendment by Labour's Chris Hinchliff to the bill that would have imposed new environmental obligations, including a rigid timetable, on developers. The Labour Growth Group (LGG), a large caucus of pro-housing MPs, had raised the alarm with the Treasury and No 10. The LGG had criticised the amendments on X on Monday, saying its members were 'against these wrecking-ball amendments, and for getting Britain BUILDING'. Hinchliff then hit back at his Labour colleagues in a post, saying he was 'not joining them in doubling down on 20 years of failed deregulation that delivers under 2% social housing a year'. Related: Planning bill will 'push public towards Reform': Labour's Chris Hinchliff on standing up for nature Senior sources suggested there had been strong opposition from the Treasury and No 10 on any new amendments or making any firmer commitments to look at adopting any of the proposals. Pennycook declined to comment but an ally said he had not been minded to accept Hinchliff's amendments in any case. The LGG had argued strongly that mitigations in the bill would mean further delays to new housing and threaten the government's 1.5m new homes target. 'For years voters have been telling politicians what they desperately need: lower my bills, get my wages rising, breathe life back into my local area, give my kids a shot at owning a decent home,' an LGG source said. 'Under the Tories, time and again they were ignored. 'This bill is a cornerstone in the government's strategy to show them we are on their side and will deliver those things – we're very clear that demands from pressure groups must not be allowed to derail it.' Leading environmental groups are warning the government that verbal promises over part 3 of the bill – which is focused on environmental obligations – are not enough and the legislation needs to include solid guarantees of environmental results with scientific assurances. Beccy Speight, the chief executive of the RSPB, said that without amendments the bill was a regression in environmental protection. 'Until we see actual amendments tabled that address the concerns held by us, many other organisations including the independent environmental watchdog, and thousands of people, we will continue to call for part 3 to be scrapped.' Speaking at the dispatch box on Monday night, Pennycook said the government would be looking at strengthening national planning policy – rather than directly legislating – on some key environmental policies such as introducing swift bricks in new houses for nesting birds. Pennycook denied the plans would allow developers to damage habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, which campaigners have called 'cash to trash'. He said some of the bill's critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the changes would do. Hinchliff said the nature restoration fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', and said his amendment would give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. MPs voted to reject the amendment, which was backed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – but not by Reform UK. Pennycook told MPs he was giving serious consideration to Office for Environmental Protection concerns, particularly that part 3 of the bill rolled back environmental laws and left protected sites vulnerable to development. Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the government needed to go beyond verbal assurances and ensure the legislation contained rock-solid guarantees of environmental results, scientific assurances that new approaches could work, and transparent delivery plans for nature benefits. 'Fixing the serious risks posed by part 3 will need more than cosmetic change,' he said. Nigel Farage's party had backed an amendment to install swift bricks in new homes, which Pennycook said the government would look at doing through guidance. Pennycook said he would continue to take advice and give 'serious consideration' on what more could be done for environmental protection, with further challenges to the bill expected in the Lords. Hinchliff said his amendment had been an attempt at compromise. 'Britain's biggest nature charities are so concerned by this bill that they have been calling for the entirety of part 3 to be removed,' he said. 'If we can't improve this bill in the Lords we won't just risk harming nature, there will be severe damage to our relationship with an electorate that cherishes green spaces. I was encouraged to hear that the minister was listening to concerns yesterday – my door remains open – I want to help the government get this right.' • This article was amended on 11 June 2025 to make clear that the aspect of the planning bill relating to development and nature protections applies to England only.
BBC News
12-06-2025
- General
- BBC News
Herts and Middlesex Wildlife Trust calls to protect rivers
Children and politicians have been urged by a charity to appreciate the importance of rivers and "globally rare" chalk streams during a county's first ever Rivers and Middlesex Wildlife Trust hosted events to showcase the local watercourses and children were encouraged to spot wildlife at Stanborough Park, Panshanger Park and Waterford Marsh in charity joined other wildlife trusts, including Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, to lobby MPs for greater protection for chalk rivers."It was fantastic to see so many people exploring our rivers and learning how they can play a part in protecting them," said Kate Sheard, the trust's community officer. Hertfordshire and Middlesex have 10% of the world's 260 chalk streams. The trust said chalk streams support some of the most "vulnerable species", including the water vole, kingfisher and wild brown group of trusts behind the campaign met with Chris Hinchliff, the MP for North East Hertfordshire, in Buntingford to "discuss the urgent challenges" facing Labour MP has led a cross-party group that is working to safeguard the future of chalk streams.A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "Chalk streams are vital ecosystems and part of our national heritage and this government is committed to cleaning up our waterways. "Water companies must now spend £22bn on restoring the environment, including chalk streams, over the next five years." Rivers Week, which included the trust running online talks about managing invasive species, was funded by the government's Species Survival Fund and supported by Affinity Water and the Environment Perry, the trust's river catchment coordinator, said: "The platform of Herts Rivers Week saw us engage with local dignitaries, decision makers and policy influencers to talk about the value of our chalk rivers and the urgent challenges these unique habitats face."As a result of this focus, we've strengthened our position on calling for better protections for our chalk rivers and it's gratifying to know that some of those in a position of power are listening and trying to take action." Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
The Guardian
10-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
No 10 blocked nature concessions in planning bill amid Labour rebellion, sources say
Downing Street and the Treasury intervened to stop any concessions in the planning bill, after pro-housing MPs voiced anger over a Labour rebel amendment that attempted to strengthen nature protections. The Guardian has been told that ministers drew up amendments to the bill last week in an attempt to head off the anger of wildlife charities and rebel Labour MPs amid a backlash against the bill. Two sources with knowledge of the discussions said they were expecting the amendments to be put in the Commons this week. But the amendments never appeared, after No 10 and the Treasury intervened. Fifteen Labour MPs rebelled against the government on Monday night to back an amendment by Labour's Chris Hinchliff to the planning and infrastructure bill which would have imposed new environmental obligations, including a rigid timetable, on developers. MPs from the Labour Growth Group (LGG) – a large caucus of pro-housing MPs – had raised the alarm with the Treasury and No 10. The LGG had criticised the amendments on X on Monday, saying its members were 'against these wrecking-ball amendments, and for getting Britain BUILDING'. Hinchliff then hit back at his Labour colleagues in a post, saying he was 'not joining them in doubling down on 20 years of failed deregulation that delivers under 2% social housing a year'. Senior sources suggested there had been strong opposition from the Treasury and No 10 on any new amendments or making any firmer commitments to look at adopting any of the proposals. The housing secretary, Matt Pennycook, declined to comment, but an ally said he had not been minded to accept Hinchliff's amendments in any case. The LGG had argued strongly that mitigations in the bill would mean further delays to new housing and threaten the government's 1.5m new homes target. 'For years voters have been telling politicians what they desperately need: lower my bills, get my wages rising, breathe life back into my local area, give my kids a shot at owning a decent home,' a Labour Growth Group source said. 'Under the Tories, time and again they were ignored. 'This bill is a cornerstone in the government's strategy to show them we are on their side and will deliver those things – we're very clear that demands from pressure groups must not be allowed to derail it.' Leading environmental groups are warning the government that verbal promises over part 3 of the bill – which is focused on environmental obligations – were not enough and the legislation needed to include solid guarantees of environmental results with scientific assurances. Beccy Speight, chief executive of the RSPB, said that without amendments the bill was a regression in environmental protection. 'Until we see actual amendments tabled that address the concerns held by us, many other organisations including the independent environmental watchdog, and thousands of people, we will continue to call for Part 3 to be scrapped.' Speaking at the dispatch box on Monday night, Pennycook said the government would be looking at strengthening national planning policy – rather than directly legislating – on some key environmental policies such as introducing swift bricks for new houses for nesting birds. Pennycook denied the plans would allow developers to damage habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, which campaigners have called 'cash to trash'. He said some of the bill's critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the changes would do. Hinchliff said the nature restoration fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', and said his amendment would give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. MPs voted to reject the amendment, which was backed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats – but not by Reform UK. Pennycook told MPs he was giving serious consideration to the OEP's concerns, particularly that part 3 of the bill rolled back environmental laws and left protected sites vulnerable to development. Richard Benwell, the CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said the government needed to go beyond verbal assurances and ensure the legislation contained rock solid guarantees of environmental results, scientific assurances that new approaches could work, and transparent delivery plans for nature benefits. 'Fixing the serious risks posed by part 3 will need more than cosmetic change,' he said. Nigel Farage's party had backed an amendment to install swift bricks in new homes, which Pennycook said the government would look at doing through guidance. Pennycook said he would continue to take advice and give 'serious consideration' on what more could be done for environmental protection, with further challenges to the bill expected in the Lords. Hinchliff said that his amendment had been an attempt at compromise. 'Britain's biggest nature charities are so concerned by this bill that they have been calling for the entirety of Part 3 to be removed. 'If we can't improve this bill in the Lords we won't just risk harming nature—there will be severe damage to our relationship with an electorate that cherishes green spaces. I was encouraged to hear that the minister was listening to concerns yesterday - my door remains open - I want to help the government get this right.'
The Independent
09-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Labour rebel forces Commons vote amid fears of housebuilding reforms ‘wreckage'
Labour MPs have rebelled against the Government over its plans to override nature protections, amid fears its housebuilding reforms amount to a 'wreckage'. Housing minister Matthew Pennycook said developers will be able to pay into a new nature recovery fund to bolster conservation efforts, which he denied was a 'cash to trash model'. But North East Hertfordshire MP Chris Hinchliff forced a division on his amendment 69, which would compel developers to improve the conservation status of environmental features on their land before causing 'damage'. MPs voted to reject the amendment, with 180 in favour, 307 against, majority 127. Mother of the House Diane Abbott, Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) and Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) were among the 14 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Government. In addition to Mr Hinchliff, Labour's Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam), Richard Burgon (Leeds East), Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby), Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth), Clive Lewis (Norwich South), Rachael Maskell (York Central), Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East), Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East), Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill), Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston), and Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) also voted in favour of the amendment. Mr Hinchliff told the Commons that the fund was a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The money will help Natural England set up new environmental delivery plans (EDPs), which Mr Hinchliff said should come with a timeline for their implementation. He said the proposal will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.' Mr Hinchliff had also called for a residents' right of appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building, and new town hall powers to block developers' plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. Mr Pennycook had earlier said the 'status quo' for the environment and development was not working, and instead proposed reforms which he described as a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The Nature Restoration Fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the Nature Restoration Fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which is set to get powers to acquire land compulsorily to put its EDPs into practice. Labour MP for Poole Neil Duncan-Jordan, who acted as a teller for the ayes to enable the vote to take place, criticised the Government's rhetoric, and argued it was 'too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers'. He said 'there's no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires which is going to fix' what he described as a 'developer-led model' of planning, when housebuilders 'drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties which maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people'. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing'. Conservative shadow housing minister Paul Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a Nature Restoration Fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Several MPs had called for swift bricks – hollow bricks where small birds can make their nests – in new builds, in amendments drafted by Labour's Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) and Barry Gardiner (Brent West), and Liberal Democrat housing spokesman Gideon Amos. At the despatch box, Mr Pennycook said that 'changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new builds', through a regularly updated set of planning rules. 'We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings unless there are compelling reasons which preclude their use, or which would make them ineffective,' the minister said. 'This would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, meaning for example that we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.'
Daily Mail
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Angela Rayner faces Labour backbench rebellion over her plans to build 1.5million new homes in England by 2029
could face a backbench rebellion from Labour MPs over the party's drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029. The Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary is fronting the Government's 'radical' overhaul of the planning system, which aims to revive housing targets for local councils and 'get Britain building again'. Its plans would require 370,000 homes to be built each year, which industry leaders claim there is 'little chance' of reaching as figures show the party is already falling short of its target by 170,000. And now, in the latest a blow to Ms Rayner's housebuilding goals, one Labour MP has threatened to trigger civil war over his demands to find a 'progressive alternative' to parts of her proposals. Labour 's Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill ahead of its debate in Parliament on Monday. The North East Hertfordshire MP has suggested arming town halls with the power to block developers' housebuilding plans, if they have failed to finish their previous projects. He has also suggested housebuilding objectors should be able to appeal against green-lit large developments, if they are not on sites which a council has set aside for building. Mr Hinchliff has claimed he does not 'want to rebel' but said he would be prepared to trigger a vote over his proposals. He added his ambition was for 'a progressive alternative to our planning system and the developer-led profit-motivated model that we have at the moment'. Mr Hinchliff said: 'Frankly, to deliver the genuinely affordable housing that we need for communities like those I represent, we just have to smash that model. 'So, what I'm setting out is a set of proposals that would focus on delivering the genuinely affordable homes that we need, empowering local communities and councils to have a driving say over what happens in the local area, and also securing genuine protection for the environment going forwards.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the current system results in 'speculative' applications on land which falls outside of councils' local housebuilding strategies, 'putting significant pressure on inadequate local infrastructure'. In his constituency, which lies between London and Cambridge, 'the properties that are being built are not there to meet local need', Mr Hinchliff said, but were instead 'there to be sold for the maximum profit the developer can make'. Asked whether his proposals chimed with the first of Labour's five 'missions' at last year's general election - 'growth' - he replied: 'If we want to have the key workers that our communities need - the nurses, the social care workers, the bus drivers, the posties - they need to have genuinely affordable homes. 'You can't have that thriving economy without the workforce there, but at the moment, the housing that we are delivering is not likely to be affordable for those sorts of roles. 'It's effectively turning the towns into commuter dormitories rather than having thriving local economies, so for me, yes, it is about supporting the local economy.' Mr Hinchliff warned that the 'bottleneck' which slows housebuilding 'is not process, it's profit'. Among the proposed reforms is a power for ministers to decide which schemes should come before councillors, and which should be delegated to local authority staff, so that committees can 'focus their resources on complex or contentious development where local democratic oversight is required'. Natural England will also be able to draft 'environmental delivery plans (EDPs)' and acquire land compulsorily to bolster conservation efforts. Mr Hinchliff has suggested these EDPs must come with a timeline for their implementation, and that developers should improve the conservation status of any environmental features before causing 'damage' - a proposal which has support from at least 43 cross-party MP backers. MPs will spend two days debating the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. Chris Curtis, the Labour MP for Milton Keynes North, warned that some of Mr Hinchliff's proposals 'if enacted, would deepen our housing crisis and push more families into poverty'. He said: 'I won't stand by and watch more children in the country end up struggling in temporary accommodation to appease pressure groups. No Labour MP should. 'It's morally reprehensible to play games with this issue. These amendments should be withdrawn.' The prospect of a backbench rebellion sparks another blow to the Government's housebuilding plans just one day after a report cast doubt on whether it would be able to meet its 2029 target at all. A bleak report by the Home Builders Federation yesterday showed Labour is falling short of its target by 170,000 homes a year. Industry leaders said the data was 'disastrous' and without urgent support from ministers there is 'little chance' of reaching the goal. Just 39,170 homes were given planning permission in England in the first three months of the year – the lowest quarterly figure since records began. That was a 55 per cent drop on the previous quarter and almost 32 per cent lower than a year earlier. The 225,067 units given approval in the 12 months to the end of March was the worst performance in 12 years. The federation said its data 'starkly illustrates the urgent need for Government to address the barriers to housing supply' if they are to get 'anywhere near the much-vaunted' target.
