Calls ‘SMASH’ existing housebuilding model

Rayner faces Labour backbench call to ‘smash’ existing housebuilding model

Angela Rayner could face a backbench rebellion from MPs demanding a “progressive alternative to our planning system”.

Labour’s Chris Hinchliff has proposed a suite of changes to the Government’s flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill, part of his party’s drive to build 1.5 million homes in England by 2029.

Mr Hinchliff has proposed 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, and put forward a new duty for authorities to protect chalk streams from “pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage”.

Mr Hinchliff has told the PA news agency 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”.

The North East Hertfordshire MP 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”.

Ms Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, is fronting the Government’s plans for 1.5 million new homes by 2029.

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.”

Published: 07/06/2025 by Radio NewsHub