Rayner: Government not compromising green protections to build homes faster
Angela Rayner has rejected that Labour will be 'bulldozing over the greenbelt' or compromising on protections for nature to build homes faster.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that proposals to give a boost to smaller developers, which will ease the requirements for them to pay to boost nature habitats, were 'pragmatism' and that the Government will be able to 'protect nature at the same time'.
The Government has set out proposals to cut red tape and for planning decisions to be shifted away from councillors and towards expert officers as part of efforts to meet Labour's pledge to build 1.5 million homes by 2029-30.
Trained planning officers rather than committees of elected councillors will be responsible for deciding on developments of up to nine homes under the plans, as well as most minor and technical applications.
The Government is considering 'streamlining' requirements on biodiversity net gain including the option of a full exemption for those minor developments.
Sites with 10 to 49 homes would fall in a new category for medium-sized developments with fewer costs, simplified biodiversity net gain rules and an exemption from the building safety levy.
The Wildlife and Countryside Link coalition of conservation groups urged the Government not to 'turn back the clock to the days of damaging development' with changes to the biodiversity net gain system.
Housing Secretary Ms Rayner rejected that she was compromising green protections to get homes built, telling broadcasters: 'No, we're simplifying the process for houses if there's under 10 houses built, and between 10 and 49.
'So we're going to simplify that process. We're going to put more expert planners on that process as well, but we won't be compromising on nature,' she said during a visit to new housing development visit near Didcot, Oxfordshire.
She said small sites are 'very different' to building large developments of hundreds or thousands of homes.
'So this is pragmatism, but we'll be able to protect nature at the same time.'
Ms Rayner told the PA news agency she could not confirm how much greenbelt land would be used but said the Government has been clear on the rules about releasing it.
'It's greybelt, as we've designated (it), which is old disused car parks like garages, so it won't be bulldozing over the greenbelt just to reassure people on that.'
Labour has reclassified some low-quality areas of greenbelt land which it calls the 'grey' belt.
Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, said: 'Exempting small sites would mean almost three-quarters of developments face no requirement to compensate for nature loss – let alone enhance it.
'These changes could leave the Biodiversity Net Gain system dead in the water and, with it, the Government's main guarantee of nature-positive planning.
'Biodiversity Net Gain is there to ensure that local communities aren't robbed of the green spaces that make places better to live in, and that developers can't take from nature without giving something back.
'This should be the rule, not the exception. Government shouldn't turn back the clock to the days of damaging development, but ensure a level playing field for all developers to contribute to growth and nature restoration.'
The Rivers Trust said plans to remove the requirements perpetuate a 'false narrative that protecting nature is delaying housebuilding'.
Chief executive Mark Lloyd warned that proposals to water it down 'risk poorer outcomes for people and nature, hampering growth by undermining confidence across sectors'.
The organisation said the plans also run counter to recent recommendations from the Office for Environmental Protection urging the Government to reaffirm its commitment to biodiversity net gain.
The Government is also seeking to support smaller firms by offering £100 million in accelerator loans.
A new National Housing Delivery Fund to be confirmed at the spending review will support long-term finance options – such as revolving credit – for small and medium sized enterprises.
And more land will be released exclusively to them by Homes England, the public body that funds new affordable housing.
A new consultation on reforming planning committees under the Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes delegating most minor and technical applications to planning officers to leave committees free to consider the most complex and controversial developments.
Under the plans, applications would be categorised as Tier A, which would go to officers, or Tier B, which would be considered by committees of councillors if deemed necessary.
The Government also announced £10 million for councils to fund more specialists to speed up environmental assessments and a £1.2 million PropTech Innovation Fund to support innovation for small sites, for example through using new data tools.
The proposals also include a new pilot in Bristol, Sheffield and Lewisham and will unlock small sites that would otherwise not have been developed.
The Conservative Party has cast doubt on Labour meeting its housing target and criticised the plans.
Kevin Hollinrake, shadow local government secretary, accused Labour of 'stripping councillors of the right to vote on local planning applications, concreting over green belt and withdrawing support for first time buyers'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
No decision on winter fuel allowance until autumn, minister says
No decision will be taken on the winter fuel allowance until the Autumn budget – dispelling speculation that the government would make an announcement on it at next week's spending review. Sir Keir Starmer last month announced his intention to give more people access to winter fuel payments, just months after Labour decided to means test the previously universal payment. But weeks later, chaotic government messaging had left millions of pensioners with no idea what the changes will look like or when they will be announced. Asked about the changes, Peter Kyle, the secretary of state for science, innovation and technology, told Sky News: 'These issues are going to be dealt with in the run up to the autumn where these decisions are going to be taken and announced. 'But this is a spending review that's going to set the overall spending constraints for government for the next period, the next three years.' Pressed on whether that means no details will be unveiled on winter fuel next week, the technology secretary said: 'I think what you're going to see is the overall spending constraints and allowances for each government department, and then each department is then going to start talking about how it's going to allocate those.' Last week, Rachel Reeves confirmed the expected U-turn on the controversial cuts would be in place for this winter, meaning that the government will be faced with a scramble to get the changes rolled out between the October budget and the winter months. While the chancellor had previously confirmed that they would not set out how the changes would be paid for until the autumn, there was a growing suggestion from the government that details on who the changes would affect could be set out at next week's spending review. The chancellor is expected to unveil a swathe of spending cuts on Wednesday as she attempts to walk the tightrope between delivering on the party's election promises and sticking within the bounds of her self-imposed fiscal rules. Mr Kyle's comments come days after pensions minister Torsten Bell confirmed there was no prospect of returning to a universal winter fuel payment for all, saying that '95 per cent of people agree that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that.' Winter fuel payments are a £300 payment to help with energy costs in the colder months. In July, the chancellor announced that pensioners not in receipt of pension credits or other means-tested benefits would no longer receive the benefit. As a result, just 1.5 million pensioners received the payment in winter 2024-25 – a massive drop from the 10.8 million pensioners who received it the year before. The cuts were deeply unpopular because they were seen as being disproportionately damaging to vulnerable people, and were criticised for leaving thousands of poorer pensions who were on the borderline missing out on the payment. In November, it was revealed that the government's own figures indicated it would force 100,000 pensioners into poverty in 2026. The policy was partly blamed for Labour's poor performance at the local elections – which saw them lose two-thirds of the council seats they had in 2021– as well as the previously Labour-held Runcorn and Helsby parliamentary seat to Reform UK. The cuts – combined with the £5bn welfare cuts and the party's decision to keep the two child benefit cap in place – have sparked growing concern over the direction of the government among Labour MPs.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Forcing rich pensioners to pay back winter fuel allowance would be tax ‘nightmare', Reeves warned
Questions have been raised over Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn after it emerged the government plans to reinstate the payments for all pensioners before attempting to claw it back from millions through higher taxes. The chancellor is expected to set out Labour's plans to reverse the controversial policy change at Wednesday's spending review, but fresh questions have been raised over how the government will distribute the payments. Reports suggest Ms Reeves will from this autumn restore the grants, worth up to £300, to the 10 million pensioners who had lost out. But only those in the bottom half of average incomes will keep the payments, with the top half of earners forced to repay the grant through higher tax bills over the course of the year. One option for the threshold at which pensioners are eligible is average household disposable income, currently around £37,000, The Times reported. Such a plan would resemble George Osborne's high income child benefit charge, which sees 1 per cent of total child benefit received taxed for every £100 earned over £60,000. It means that, over whatever threshold Ms Reeves sets for the payments, an amount will be clawed back from those on higher incomes. The plans could cost around £700 million, with the chancellor vowing to set out her plans to pay for the change at her autumn Budget. Dennis Reed, of over-60s campaign group Silver Voices, said the plans 'would be an administrative nightmare and would be likely to draw in many more pensioners into the tax system'. He told The Independent: 'The most cost effective solution is to restore the universal benefit and maybe fiddle around with the higher tax threshold in due course to target 'the millionaires'.' Mr Reed accused the government of 'casting around for ways to show it has not made a complete U-turn while gaining the political credit for doing so'. It comes after pensions minister Torsten Bell said there is no prospect of the winter fuel allowance being restored universally. He said: 'The principle I think most people, 95 per cent of people, agree, that it's not a good idea that we have a system paying a few hundreds of pounds to millionaires, and so we're not going to be continuing with that.' Sir Keir Starmer last month announced his intention to give more people access to winter fuel payments, just months after Labour made the previously universal payment means-tested in one of its first acts after taking office. Speaking in Manchester on Wednesday, Ms Reeves said: 'I had to make decisions last year to restore sound public finances, and that involved a number of difficult decisions around welfare, taxation and also public spending, including the decision to means-test winter fuel payments so only the poorest pensioners, those on pension credit, got it. 'But we have now put our public finances on a firmer footing. The economy is in a better shape, but we have also listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means-test. 'So we will be making changes to that. They will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter, and we'll announce the details of that and the level of that as soon as we possibly can.' The Treasury and Department for Work and Pensions have been asked to comment.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Voices: Government needs the can-do mindset I experienced in the Army to push change through fast
Government moves too slowly. That's not just the fault of the current government or the last one – it's the system. Slowed down by bureaucracy. Paralysed by 'can't-do' figures. Obsessed with process over progress. I come from a background of delivery. In the Army, working in a 'human intelligence unit' – liaising with agents and special forces – we had to move from first gear to fifth in an instant. Lives depended on it. Getting ahead of the enemy, protecting our people and achieving results was the mission – not talking it to death. Confirming the location of a high-value target, whilst also ensuring they were alone and targetable, or identifying the precise site of an improvised explosive device factory, required creativity and a determined mindset – a willingness to take calculated risks to save lives and win. When I worked in counterterrorism at the Ministry of Defence, delivery wasn't optional. We built a culture of 'can-do'; creative, risk-aware and focused on action. It wasn't about perfection. It was about progress. Government could learn a lot from the mindset of the finest military in the world and the departments that work every day to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. An unstoppable political will must go hand in hand with a mindset of delivery. I think back to our counterterror planning meetings. The mission? To stop terrorists attacking our great country. No timewasters. Just serious professionals putting ideas on the table, pulling them apart, war-gaming every outcome, then locking in a plan and going all-out to deliver. That mindset – challenge, rigour and rapid execution – is what the system of government has desperately lacked for decades. Too often, it's delay by design. Endless consultations. Five-year strategies that take ten. Pet projects blocked by internal turf wars. Take the Lower Thames Crossing: more than £1.2 billion spent before a single spade in the ground – all because of drawn-out decision-making and red tape. Or the A9 dualling project in Scotland – promised by 2025, now pushed back to 2035. Ten years of drift. These delays are not acts of God. They are failures of will. The truth is, Whitehall needs reform. There are dedicated, brilliant people across the civil service – but too many are trapped in a system built to say 'no'. Risk aversion is often rewarded, not challenged. Delivery is too often deprioritised in favour of process, and meaningful reform is blocked by a sprawling web of arms-length bodies and quangos that diffuse responsibility and stifle urgency. We need a leaner, more focused state – one that empowers departments to move at pace and is held accountable for outcomes, not paperwork. That means streamlining quangos where appropriate, ending duplication, and changing the mindset within government itself. Ministers must be prepared to challenge officials – not to attack, but to sharpen decision-making and force clarity on delivery. Wes Streeting's approach to the NHS offers a blueprint. He's made clear that, as health secretary, he expects faster delivery, more accountability, and a culture that doesn't settle for 'this is just how things are done'. Abolishing NHS England shows a steely commitment to the change he expects. But reforming structures is only half the battle – changing the culture is the real prize. Government must operate with a sense of mission, not maintenance. The British public doesn't care whether a successful policy comes from Bevan or Thatcher. They care that it works. That it's delivered. We need to strip out the ideology and face complex problems with a solutions-based mindset. Let the evidence lead. Move fast. Be willing to make mistakes in the name of making progress. And above all, get things done. Because there's serious work to do.
