
Rayner housing blitz will flood Britain with ‘soulless settlements', Tories say
Labour will create 'soulless settlements' and encourage urban sprawl with its plans to overhaul the planning system, the shadow housing minister has said.
Kevin Hollinrake said that Angela Rayner's plans will strip local residents of power over their own communities, and risks the proliferation of ugly 'cookie-cutter homes'.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which returns to the Commons this week, aims to speed up planning decisions in part by stripping local authorities of some decision-making powers.
Labour plans to build 1.5 million new homes over the course of this Parliament, which they say will be possible in part with construction on poor-quality green belt, dubbed 'grey belt'.
The Government has also reintroduced mandatory housing targets, totalling 370,000 homes a year, for local authorities.
The Conservatives claim that the new legislation lacks sufficient protections for the character of England's smaller towns and villages, which could end up merging into the areas with the new settlements.
'Must build homes people want'
Writing in The Telegraph, Mr Hollinrake said that the Bill 'starts by blatantly encouraging urban sprawl, increasing housing targets for councils outside of towns and cities whilst easing targets for cities like London'.
He said: 'This will just create new, soulless settlements, take away our green belt, and make residents feel trapped and isolated hours away from their friends, work, and the amenities they need.'
The shadow housing secretary also pointed to the Government scrapping the Office for Place, which was founded to devise how to make attractive and well-designed housing.
'Without the Office for Place, there is nothing protecting communities from the bland, cookie-cutter houses that foster isolation.
'One and a half million new homes is an admirable ambition, but it means nothing if you don't build the communities and homes people actually want.'
'We are taking decisive action'
The Tories have tabled an amendment designed to enshrine in law the preservation of the historic character of historic villages and prevent them from merging with other settlements.
The legislation will also see more powers given to Natural England, a quango, which will be tasked with drawing up 'environmental delivery plans' for new proposed developments.
But Mr Hollinrake said that the organisation is 'grossly underprepared for such a nationally significant mission' and risks 'wasting taxpayers' money in the process'.
A Government spokesman said: 'We completely reject these claims, which simply do not acknowledge the scale of the housing crisis [we] inherited.
'Through our Planning and Infrastructure Bill, along with our wider reforms, we are taking decisive action to speed up every stage of the planning process and deliver the homes and infrastructure we need.
'The Bill creates a win-win for nature recovery and development, including a new Nature Restoration Fund, which unblocks building by funding large scale protection of precious habitats and species.'
Labour isn't creating greener, cleaner communities you're proud to be a part of – Conservatives are
by Kevin Hollinrake
Every person in Britain deserves a place they can call home. A community they can be proud to return to after a hard day's work.
One that is safe, connected and prosperous, embodying the green and pleasant land that our nation should stand for. Without this, we cease to be a united community and a United Kingdom.
We have forgotten this. Our communities have never been more divided. Never felt more hopeless and isolated. And people are crying out for change. We cannot afford to fail them.
Labour doesn't understand this. And, as the Planning and Infrastructure Bill returns to Parliament, it clear to see.
In its current state, the Bill will encourage isolation and break up communities. It won't connect or empower people. It won't help nature flourish or build beautiful houses that people are proud to call home.
It starts by blatantly encouraging urban sprawl, increasing housing targets for councils outside of towns and cities whilst easing targets for cities like London.
This will just create new, soulless settlements, take away our green belt, and make residents feel trapped and isolated hours away from their friends, work, and the amenities they need.
'Labour doesn't care for creating beautiful communities'
Instead, we should be gently densifying our existing towns and cities to resurrect lost communities.
This requires beautiful new homes and developments that bring nature and the life it brings back into the hearts of our towns and cities. Look at some of the most beautiful parts of our great cities, like Marylebone in London, with mid-rise, six-storey mansion blocks. No one would complain if this beautiful architecture were repeated elsewhere.
But Labour showed it doesn't care for creating beautiful, connected communities when they shut the Office for Place. With Nicholas Boys Smith at the helm, it made sure new developments focused on building beautiful, green and connected communities.
Without the Office for Place, there is nothing protecting communities from the bland, cookie-cutter houses that foster isolation. One and a half million new homes is an admirable ambition, but it means nothing if you don't build the communities and homes people actually want.
Building beautiful also means reviving nature within communities, and that starts by empowering local residents. They know what they need, not mandarins in Whitehall.
But once again, Labour doesn't understand how to revive lost communities. For generations, Labour has wanted weak communities dependent on the state, and this continues today. They are stripping local communities of autonomy by backtracking on their promise to slash quangos and putting taxpayers' money and the responsibility of local nature in the hands of Natural England.
Natural England is grossly underprepared for such a nationally significant mission. And we have seen too many times centrally controlled quangos struggle with the basics whilst wasting taxpayers' money in the process.
'Conservative MPs are taking action'
To its credit, at least Labour's Bill will bring some good news for smaller house builders. Cutting and simplifying planning and biodiversity red tape will make it much easier for them to compete with the volume house builders.
That is why Conservative MPs are taking action, amending this Bill to ensure Britain gets the empowered, connected and beautiful communities you deserve.
Whether it is David Simmonds – my fellow shadow minister for housing, communities and local government – enshrining the right to preserve the special character of historic villages and preventing them from merging with other towns. Or encouraging more sustainable drainage so we have cleaner rivers and communities.
Or Rebecca Smith, MP for South West Devon, and her amendment to end ridiculous red tape on creating ponds, empowering local communities to breathe life into local nature whilst protecting their areas from drought and flooding.
Or Aphra Brandreth – a former councillor and now MP for Chester South and Eddisbury – whose amendment will make it easier for local communities to plant more trees, creating a greener, more pleasant environment.
That is just to mention a few, because my colleagues have been working tirelessly to hold Labour to account.
We rightly lost the last election because we failed to listen to the British people and deliver on their priorities. There is a long road to regaining your trust – we know that.
But in opposition, we are taking the fight to Labour and delivering for Britain. We are listening. And with our amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we will deliver a more connected, prosperous and greener country that you can once again feel proud to be part of.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


BBC News
31 minutes ago
- BBC News
Family visa income threshold should be lower, review says
The minimum income threshold for family visas should be relaxed, a government-commissioned review has recommended.A report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has suggested a reduction from the current level of £29, warned against previous proposals to raise the threshold to the same level as for skilled workers - £38,700 a year - saying it could breach the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).The Conservatives said that the UK should leave the ECHR if it "stops us from setting our own visa rules". Article 8 of the ECHR enshrines the right to family threshold is the minimum income a British citizen or settled resident must earn to bring their partner to join them in the UK. If the partner is already in the UK on a valid visa, their income also counts towards the minimum applications are made by people not already living in the UK. The MAC suggested a range of possible new thresholds. It said a level between £23,000 to £25,000 would enable families to support themselves.A threshold of between £24,000 to £28,000 meanwhile would put more emphasis on economic wellbeing - both of the families themselves and for said it did "not understand the rationale" for setting the family visa threshold at the £38,700 level for skilled workers, as the two visas have "completely different objective[s]".A £38,700 level would be the "most likely to conflict with international law and obligations".It is the government's decision whether to accept any of the MAC's recommendations. Prof Brian Bell, chairman of the MAC, said that balancing family life and economic wellbeing was a "real trade-off"."There is a cost to the UK economy and UK taxpayers of having this route, and we should just be honest about that and say there is a trade-off," he said."But similarly, on the other side, people who say 'we should set it at very high numbers to make sure that we don't lose any money' ignore the massive impact that has on families and the destruction of some relationships and the harm it causes to children." A higher threshold would also have a "negative impact on the family life of a larger number of people", the MAC said. It noted many families with lower incomes still earn enough to support themselves even if they do not make a net positive fiscal impact on the said an adult would need to earn £27,800 to have a neutral impact on the public finances - and £40,400 for a couple to have no impact in the first year a spouse arrived in the MAC did not recommend a higher threshold for families with children, saying the impacts on family life for them would be "particularly significant". In 2023 the previous Conservative government announced plans to raise the salary threshold to £38,700, as part of plans to cut the level of they backed down following criticism that this would keep families apart, settling on a £29,000 threshold with plans to gradually increase it did not implement those further rises when the party came into government and asked the MAC to review the committee said the threshold of £29,000 was already high compared to other high-income countries it had looked at. The MAC said it "was not possible to predict with any confidence" the impact different thresholds would have on the level of net migration - the difference between those entering and leaving the did suggest lowering the threshold from £29,000 to roughly £24,000 may increase net migration by up to 8,000 migration in 2024 was an estimated 431,000 people, down almost 50% on the previous followed record high levels in recent years, with the government under political pressure to get numbers down further. The MAC also criticised the Home Office for its data collection, saying insufficient data "greatly hindered" their review.A Home Office spokesperson said the government was considering the review's findings and would respond in due course. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said migration figures remain too high and that the government "must urgently re-instate the Conservative plan to further increase the salary threshold"."If the ECHR stops us from setting our own visa rules, from deporting foreign criminals or from putting Britain's interests first, then we should leave the ECHR," he ECHR, which was established in 1950, sets out the rights and freedoms people are entitled to in the 46 signatory countries and is a central part of UK human rights month, the government said it would bring forward legislation to clarify how aspects of the ECHR should apply in immigration cases.


The Guardian
36 minutes ago
- The Guardian
What's behind Keir Starmer's decision to back nuclear power?
Keir Starmer has committed the UK to its first significant stake in a new nuclear power plant since the 1980s. The decision to invest almost £18bn of taxpayer money into the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk was welcomed by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, as the beginning of a 'golden age' of nuclear investment that would be critical to the government's net zero goals. The government said on Tuesday it would commit £14.2bn to the project, including the £2.7bn it earmarked for Sizewell C in the autumn budget. It has already committed £3.6bn to Sizewell over the past two years. Britain's nuclear renaissance will also include spending about £2.5bn of taxpayer money building some of Europe's first small modular reactors (SMR), after the government gave the green light to plans for Rolls-Royce to build three in the UK by the early 2030s. For critics, the technology's high costs and lengthy construction time have always eclipsed the benefits of abundant low-carbon electricity, given Hinkley Point C's current price tag of up to £35bn and repeated delays. There are also persistent concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors, and the disposal of nuclear waste. But questions over whether countries can meet the growing demand for electricity without fossil fuels, and avoid blackouts, mean many governments now believe nuclear represents a price worth paying. Megawatt for megawatt, nuclear power is far more expensive than most renewable energy technologies. But, unlike wind and solar farms, nuclear reactors do not need investment in battery backup technologies to provide a steady, reliable source of low-carbon power. The guaranteed electricity price offered to Hinkley Point C was initially £92 per megawatt-hour but this will fall to £89.50/MWh with the go-ahead for Sizwell C, under the terms of the government's contract with French state-owned EDF. By contrast, the guaranteed price for offshore windfarms which were successful in last year's subsidy auction was just under £59 per megawatt-hour. 'The upfront cost [of nuclear] is undoubtedly high,' said Dr Iain Staffell, an associate professor at Imperial College London. '£14bn could fund around 10 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind versus just 3.2 GW of nuclear. But, these reactors will run day and night, especially valuable when the wind is not blowing.' Prof Mark Wenman, also at Imperial College London, added that the costs needed to be balanced against the fact that these reactors 'will produce low carbon electricity for 80 or possibly 100 years, 24/7, providing around a 10th of the current UK electricity needs'. 'Once paid for, nuclear reactors produce the cheapest electricity of any kind, so this investment should be seen as future-proofing the UK electricity system,' Wenman said. Experts believe that powering a country on 100% renewable energy is technically possible. But there is clear evidence that grid systems running predominantly on wind and solar power can be more expensive in the long run, and could be at higher risk of blackouts. This is because renewable energy cannot help to keep the electrical frequency of the grid stable at around 50Hz in the same way that the spinning turbines of a power plants have done in the past by creating inertia. The answer, according to the government's National Energy System Operator (Neso), is to encourage renewables to become the backbone of the energy system while keeping alternatives such as nuclear, biomass and gas to provide backup for when renewable resources are low and grid stability is needed. The government's independent climate advisers agree. The Climate Change Committee recommends that the UK's nuclear capacity doubles by 2050 because while it is 'relatively expensive on a levelised cost basis' it can provide 'valuable zero-carbon generation at scale'. Britain risks losing the benefits offered by nuclear plants by shutting its ageing nuclear reactors faster than it can build new ones – leaving a gap in the UK's supplies of low-carbon electricity at a time when demand for clean energy is growing. The UK's five existing nuclear power reactors generated 14% of the country's electricity last year – down from the industry's late-1990s peak when 18 nuclear reactors provided more than a quarter of Britain's power. Four of these plants are due to close before the end of the decade, even with plans to extend their lifetimes, while only one nuclear power plant is under construction. The Hinkley Point C project in Somerset was originally due to begin generating electricity by 2017 but it has been delayed until the early 2030s. Driving Britain's nuclear renaissance is the tech industry's appetite for nuclear power. Starmer unveiled plans for a once-in-a-generation nuclear expansion earlier this year alongside an open invitation to tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon to invest in AI datacentres in Britain, which could be powered by small modular reactors. This is because world's biggest tech companies are investing in extending the life of nuclear plants and building small modular reactors to help meet the enormous power demands of their datacentres. This growing demand is expected to accelerate with the adoption of artificial intelligence. Earlier this month Meta struck a deal to keep one nuclear reactor of a US utility company in Illinois operating for an extra 20 years to help supply the company's datacentres with low-carbon power. It follows a similar deal from Google to supply its datacentres with nuclear power from half-dozen small reactors built by a California utility company. In addition, Microsoft has paid for the restart the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the most serious nuclear accident and radiation leak in US history. 'They are very keen to get the datacentres in and they're very alive to the fact that the power is a big issue,' Starmer said.


Daily Mirror
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Labour to end 200 years of injustice by ripping up 'shameful' rough sleeping law
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said the Government is 'drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice' by abolishing the Vagrancy Act, which has been on the statute books since 1824 Labour will finally tear up "shameful" 200 year old laws criminalising rough sleepers. The Government has announced it will abolish the Vagrancy Act, which makes rough sleeping illegal in England and Wales. The 1824 legislation has long been criticised by homelessness charities, and the move has been branded a " landmark moment that will change lives". The Government said the move will be included as an amendment to the flagship Crime and Policing Bill - with new laws instead targeting organised begging by gangs and trespassing. The Act will be scrapped by next spring, ministers say. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner said: 'We are drawing a line under nearly two centuries of injustice towards some of the most vulnerable in society, who deserve dignity and support. 'No one should ever be criminalised simply for sleeping rough and by scrapping this cruel and outdated law, we are making sure that can never happen again.' The move has been welcomed by charities which support rough sleepers. Matt Downie, chief executive of Crisis, said: 'This is a landmark moment that will change lives and prevent thousands of people from being pushed into the shadows, away from safety. 'For 200 years the Vagrancy Act has meant that people who are homeless are treated as criminals and second class citizens. It has punished people for trying to stay safe and done nothing to address why people become homeless in the first place. 'Ending the use of the Vagrancy Act recognises a shameful history of persecuting people for poverty and destitution, something that figures like William Wilberforce and Winston Churchill warned against in their opposition to the Act. 'It is of great credit to the UK Government that they have shown such principled leadership in scrapping this pernicious Act." And St Mungo's CEO Emma Haddad said:"The repeal of the Vagrancy Act, which criminalises rough sleeping, cannot come soon enough. "Right now, we are supporting thousands of people who are rough sleeping; everyone facing this issue has their own heartbreaking story to tell of how they ended up on the streets - from complex mental and physical health issues to an increasingly unaffordable housing market." The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) says it will be concentrating tackling the root causes of homelessness. It has boosted funding for homelessness services by an extra £233million this financial year, while Ms Rayner is heading up a new homelessness strategy. Minister for Homelessness Rushanara Ali said: 'Today marks a historic shift in how we're responding to the rough sleeping crisis, by repealing an archaic Act that is neither just nor fit for purpose. Scrapping the Vagrancy Act for good is another step forward in our mission to tackle homelessness in all its forms, by focusing our efforts on its root causes.'