Labour rebel forces Commons vote amid fears of housebuilding reforms ‘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.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
27 minutes ago
- The Independent
Colombian court frees former president Uribe from house arrest until it rules on bribery case
A Colombian appeals court ruled Tuesday that former president Alvaro Uribe must be released from house arrest while he challenges his conviction for bribery and witness tampering. On Aug. 1, the conservative leader was sentenced to 12 years of house arrest for threatening and trying to flip witnesses who had spoken to investigators about his alleged role in the formation of a right wing paramilitary group in the 1990s. Uribe denies the charges and has appealed the conviction to the Superior Tribunal in Bogota. The court has until mid-October to issue a definitive ruling on the case, which has gripped Colombia and also provoked reactions from Uribe's allies in the United States. On Tuesday the Superior Tribunal said it approved an injunction filed by Uribe's defense team seeking his release from house arrest. Uribe's lawyers argued the former president's right to due process was violated by the arrest order against him, as well as his right to a presumption of innocence.
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour's war on Middle England: Rural areas could foot the bill to pay for Rayner's reforms of council tax
Middle England will be hit by the highest possible increases in council taxes to pay for 's reforms to the system, town hall leaders have warned. Households in the countryside will reportedly be charged at unfairly high levels to pay for residents of cities under the Communities Secretary's 'fair funding' plans. Last night, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded it a 'spiteful' move that will push more cash into traditional Labour areas. Analysis by the County Councils Network (CNN) found rural and county local authorities will lose close to half a billion pounds in Government cash over the next three years thanks to Ms Rayner's attempt to level up the system. This will force them to cut vital services and hike bills for hard-pressed residents by the maximum 5 per cent allowed. The CCN demanded an urgent injection of cash from Whitehall to fill the gap, warning town halls on the brink would otherwise be unable to provide crucial care for the elderly and vulnerable children. It comes after almost all town halls raised bills by the maximum amount earlier this year to deal with soaring demand and costs, taking the average bill to £2,280. Chairman of the group, councillor Tim Oliver, said: 'Some 16 county and rural councils will see reductions in grant funding, while the Government's proposals place a disproportionate burden on taxpayers in county areas to fund local services and redistribute funding to urban areas. 'It's vital the Government makes more money available to mitigate the impact of these reforms.' Ms Badenoch said: 'Yet again the Labour Government is showing utter contempt for people living in rural Britain. 'The family farms tax has been devastating, and scrapping the rural services grant has put rural councils under enormous pressure. 'This latest change will steal more money out of the hands of county councils and send it straight into Labour-run urban areas.' Under Ms Rayner's Fair Funding Review 2.0, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) will make major changes to how English councils are funded. Her updated formula will allocate cash based on local areas' needs and their ability to raise council tax compared to others around the country. The Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank has already warned it will create big winners and losers, with those in the home counties likely to suffer budget cuts unless council taxes rise. In its response to the MHCLG consultation, published last night, the CCN said it would mean 16 authorities – including some in the Midlands and North – losing £470million of funding over the next three years. In total, county and unitary councils' grant funding will rise by just £374million. Unless 33 of the 38 town halls impose the maximum 5 per cent council tax rises, they will see a real-terms cut in funding, according to the CCN. Metropolitan authorities will get £1.2billion, and a proposal to redistribute £1.6billion in council tax income will benefit urban areas at the expense of the countryside. An MHCLG spokesman said: 'We do not recognise this analysis. We are taking decisive action to reform the funding system.'
Daily Mail
28 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Fears new Labour property tax will hit the hardest workers, as Rachel Reeves's minister refuses to rule out controversial new levy to replace stamp duty
faced a furious backlash yesterday over a possible and highly controversial shake-up of property levies. The Chancellor was warned that proposals to replace stamp duty with an annual charge on homes worth more than £500,000 would damage the market as well as punish people who have worked hard to own their houses. And one of her Treasury ministers refused to rule out the possibility of her introducing the radical change in the Budget as she seeks to fill a £50 billion black hole in the public finances. Labour vowed before the last election that it would 'not increase taxes on working people', ruling out rises in National Insurance, income tax or VAT. But that language seemed to soften yesterday. Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride said: 'Labour can equivocate all they like, but we know they are drawing up plans to raise taxes yet again at the Autumn Budget. ' Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves promised not to raise taxes on working people, then introduced a £25 billion Jobs Tax – which will leave the average working household £3,500 worse off. 'Now, after their botched welfare reforms and economic mismanagement, they are clearly gearing up to do it all over again this autumn. 'The British public simply cannot afford Labour. Only the Conservatives believe in sound money and low taxes.' As part of her efforts to fill the Government's coffers and boost economic growth, Ms Reeves is understood to have asked officials to look at a potential overhaul of property taxes. She has already been called on by economists to scrap the current system in which buyers having to pay thousands of pounds in stamp duty on house sales, which they say deters people from moving. The Guardian reported that owners of houses worth more than £500,000 could have to pay a 'proportional property tax' based on the value of their properties when they sell up. However, sources played down the claims that Treasury officials are looking at this proposal or threshold. Sources also moved away from suggestions that civil servants are drawing on the findings of a report published last year by think-tank Onward, which proposed that only future owners could pay an annual tax based on the value of the property instead of stamp duty. Under the plan put forward by economist Professor Tim Leunig, current homeowners would not be hit by the charge but if they do sell up in future, their buyers would pay the levy each year instead of stamp duty at the point of purchase. Kirstie Allsopp, the TV presenter who fronts Location, Location, Location, led a furious backlash over the reported plans It is intended to open up the property market by making it less expensive to move and encouraging those in large homes to downsize. TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp warned the Chancellor not to risk destabilising the market by 'flying kites' about potential new property taxes, telling Times Radio: 'It's not Rachel's to go after because it's their homes. 'It's the roof over their head. And this Government seems to want to punish people for making the sacrifices they've made to buy their own homes.' James Browne, senior economic policy adviser at the Tony Blair Institute, said: 'While replacing stamp duty with a new annual property levy on homes worth more than £500,000 is economically sensible, it would be politically challenging. 'Either long-standing homeowners who are asset-rich but cash-poor would be hit with much larger bills or, if it only applied after a property changed hands, would discourage moving just as much as stamp duty does at the moment.' Treasury minister Torsten Bell told Sky News: 'Tax decisions are made by the Chancellor. I'm not going to start speculating on individual taxes.' Last night a Treasury spokesman said: 'We are protecting payslips for working people by keeping our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance or VAT.' What are the plans for a 'national property tax'? What is being proposed? The Treasury is said to be considering plans for a national property tax on the sale of homes worth more than £500,000. What would this replace? This tax would replace stamp duty on owner-occupied homes. Buyers pay stamp duty under the existing framework, if they purchase property worth more than £125,000. How would the new tax work? The new levy would be paid by owner-occupiers on houses worth more than £500,000 when they sell their home, with the amount due determined by the value of the property and a rate set by the Government. What figures could be involved? This has not been confirmed. But a report by think tank Onward last year suggested replacing stamp duty with an annual 'national proportional property tax' levied on homeowners of houses with a value above £500,000, at a rate of 0.54% - plus a 0.278% supplement on values over £1million. A separate local property tax set at 0.44% of the house value up to £500,000 and with a minimum of £800 per household per year could replace council tax. What are current stamp duty rates? Stamp duty rates for buying a single property are currently 2% from £125,000; 5% from £250,001; 10% from £925,001; and 12% from £1.5million.
