Latest news with #Hinchliff
ITV News
18-07-2025
- Business
- ITV News
Government change flagship planning bill after pressure from MP expelled for rebelling
The government has changed its flagship planning bill to add better environmental protections in response to a campaign spearheaded by suspended MP Chris Hinchliff. Hinchliff had the Labour whip withdrawn on Wednesday for persistently rebelling against the government, just a day before the announcement than an amendment he put forward had largely been accepted. The change means that housing developers will now have to explicitly set out how they will protect the environment before a development starts being built. The government insist the changes they have put forward are different to the ones suggested by Hinchliff - but they've been accused of watering down the bill in response to pressure from MPs and campaigners. 'There are clear differences between the amendment we rejected and the one we put forward yesterday," a government spokesperson said. 'The previous amendment would have introduced unnecessary restrictions and impractical measures, while our changes will provide greater confidence that the right conservation measures will come forward at the right time. 'After carefully listening to the Office for Environmental Protection and other expert stakeholders, we have brought forward a comprehensive package of amendments to ensure our reforms deliver improved outcomes for nature whilst supporting our efforts to get Britain building.' Hinchliff's amendment was also supported by the three other MPs who had the whip withdrawn on Wednesday - Neil Duncan-Jordan, Rachael Maskell and Brian Leishman. It was the rebellion over the government's proposed welfare cuts that sparked the suspensions, and while Hinchliff voted against the government on the benefits reforms, he also organised a revolt against the planning bill. The government U-turned on its package of welfare cuts after pressure from swathes of Labour backbenchers - leaving all of the £5 billion-worth of planned savings wiped out. Despite caving in to the rebels on welfare, on Wednesday Prime Minister Keir Starmer suspended Hinchliff and three other MPs for "repeatedly break[ing] the whip". Three other MPs also had their roles as trade envoys removed. Hinchliff's amendment called for environmental plans laid out by developers and already included in the bill (EDPs) to include a schedule setting out "the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results". In updates to the bill announced on Thursday night the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Levelling Up appeared to accept some of Hinchliff's changes. "We will also now require EDPs to set out the anticipated sequencing of the implementation of conservation measures – with specific reference to the timing of development coming forward," the department said. "This will provide additional assurance that EDPs will not lead to open-ended or irreversible impacts from development. "This would include detail as to whether and which conservation measures must be in place in advance of development coming forward, ensuring that no irreversible harm could occur to an environmental feature." A summary of the changes also confirmed rare species would also get extra protections: "Upfront conservation measures may be necessary in instances where a habitat or species is rare or fragile, requiring immediate action to improve its conservation status before development impacting upon it could be approved." In a statement Hinchliff said he "warmly welcomes" the changes and will now vote with the government on the bill. 'Ministers have now tabled amendments in the House of Lords that address many of the issues I raised. 'The key function of Amendment 69 - which I tabled in the Commons - was to ensure Environmental Delivery Plans result in genuine improvements to the specific environmental features identified as at risk. 'Last night's announcement from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government confirms that the Government is directly tackling this point." Hinchliff said he was refused meetings with the relevant minister to raise his concerns. 'I wanted to engage constructively with the government, to raise views shared by millions of members of nature organisations, and to find solutions through dialogue," he said. "I hope in the future we can find consensus ahead of time and avoid confrontations. I look forward to voting with the government on a significantly improved Bill when it returns to the Commons. 'This episode underscores the need for a collaborative approach to politics - one that respects the role of parliamentary democracy and listens to experts, campaigners, and the public." The CEO of Wildlife and Countryside Link also welcomed the changes, CEO Richard Benwell said: "Any change to environmental protection comes with risk, but the government's new amendments give stronger safeguards for UK wildlife and help ensure that irreplaceable habitats stay off the table for development."'It's rare for a government to bring forward a package of positive amendments before losing a single vote. "The changes today are testament to the strength of public demand for a planning system that will protect and restore nature, but they are also a positive sign of a government willing to listen to good environmental sense."
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Planning bill will ‘push public towards Reform': Labour's Chris Hinchliff on standing up for nature
Keir Starmer's planning bill will 'push the public towards Reform', a Labour MP has said as he urges his colleagues to back amendments to the legislation. Chris Hinchliff, MP for North East Hertfordshire, has submitted a package of amendments to the bill, which as it stands, lets developers 'pay cash to trash nature', he said. These will be debated in parliament during the report stage in early June. One of his amendments, to protect chalk streams, was rejected by the government this week. A growing number of backbenchers are becoming concerned and angry about the bill, with Clive Lewis and Terry Jermy among those supporting amendments to strengthen protections for nature. Labour's plan to build 1.5m homes by 2029 will, it believes, be expedited by passing the planning and infrastructure bill, which is at its committee stage in parliament. The government argues that the proposed legislation will speed up housing developments and large infrastructure projects by allowing developers to avoid meeting environmental obligations to protect habitats and species such as barn owls, otters, bats and newts, at the site of their project. Instead they will pay into a central nature restoration fund (NRF) that will be used to create environmental improvement elsewhere. But there is growing concern about the impacts of these plans, with government officials admitting this nature improvement could be carried out in a different county to where a building project is taking place. Pretty much every nature and environment group in England has objected to the bill as it stands. The National Trust, RSPB, and the Wildlife Trusts have said the proposed legislation puts rare habitats at risk and does not give any kind of baseline on which to measure environmental improvement. Related: Labour's planning bill threatens protected habitats, says environment watchdog Hinchliff told the Guardian that these changes meant Labour would be 'fighting communities, kicking and screaming', adding: 'All that will do is push, push the public towards Reform and that politicians aren't interested in what they think and what matters for their local community.' His amendments include changing environmental delivery plans, so environmental improvement is guaranteed before development begins rather than after it finishes; having targets for socially rented home delivery; and giving people the right to appeal decisions on developments they think are harmful to the local area. Hinchliff's proposals have made him unpopular among some commentators. He has been accused of being part of 'hedgehog Hezbollah' and is constantly called a 'nimby' for suggesting amendments to the bill. But he rebuffed such labels, saying: 'No, I don't think I'm a nimby. There are housing developments in my town just around the corner from me that I think are quite sensible. We've got a town in my constituency that is due to double in size, and I'm not opposing that.' Related: 'Irreplaceable habitat': planning bill raises fears for England's chalk streams Taking on the government like this might make him unpopular, but Hincliff shrugged. 'If it makes me less popular with the government, it makes me less popular with the government,' he said. The bill allows for developers to potentially damage irreplaceable habitats such as chalk streams and pay for them to be offset with nature elsewhere. But nature experts argue that chalk streams cannot be replaced as they are unique and rare ecosystems that only arise under certain conditions. 'There's a lot of chalk streams in my constituency. They're one of the things that residents really care about and love about the constituency that we live in,' Hinchliff said. 'One the reasons why I tabled that amendment is because some habitats are irreplaceable, and it's important that we protect those from damage, because you can't just give developers the right pay cash to trash nature like that.' That amendment was rejected on Wednesday by the Labour MPs on the parliamentary committee examining the draft law. On the same day, the government admitted in its risk assessment of the bill that there was very little evidence that nature protections blocked developments. Removing these protections on this basis was 'dangerous', Hinchliff said. 'Many habitats are on the brink. Species are on the brink. And if we allow harm and pollution to go ahead on the proviso that in the future, will have a pot of money and will make things better those ecosystems will be functionally dead in many instances, if we're not careful.' He added: 'When I read our manifesto, I took away from that very clear message that we were going to deliver the housing that the country needed in tandem with protecting the environment.' Hinchliff has been alarmed by criticism of the bill by the Office for Environmental Protection and Sir Partha Dasgupta, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Cambridge. Hinchliff said some Labour colleagues had come on board with his campaign, and there could be a sizeable group of rebels: 'It's a hugely political issue that matters to an awful lot of people, and I think my colleagues will feel the heat on this. I've been really pleased with the level of support I've received. I've had a good number of colleagues get back to say that they're willing to support my amendments,' he said. Despite potentially being out of step with the party leadership at present, which has said it backs the 'builders' rather than the 'blockers' and prioritises homes over bats and newts, Hinchliff said he was standing up for traditional Labour values. 'What I'm standing up for is a long and proud tradition of Labour values and that people from across the Labour movement have fought for for generations,' he said. 'Let's not forget, it was the Labour government which created the greenbelt, Labour politicians who created our national parks. These are all Labour traditions, and I'm hoping that I can persuade my party to look closely and seriously at the proposals I've put forward.'
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.
North Wales Chronicle
10-06-2025
- Politics
- North Wales Chronicle
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.'
Powys County Times
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Powys County Times
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.'
