Author: admin

Margaret Greenwood – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

The speech made by Margaret Greenwood, the Labour MP for Wirral West, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate.

It is vital that we protect the green belt because it brings huge benefits to people’s health and wellbeing, and has a major role in supporting wildlife habitats, allowing nature to flourish and mitigating the effects of climate change. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) in pointing out that that is important for everybody, regardless of how much wealth they enjoy.

It is vital that we build the houses that people so desperately need on brownfield sites. We need to build truly affordable homes on brownfield sites that have high insulation values, and heat pumps and solar panels as standard, so that people can enjoy the benefits of moving into a high-quality home that is cheap to heat. Who would not want to do that?

The last “State of brownfield” report by CPRE, the countryside charity, published in November last year, found that the number of new homes that could be built on brownfield land has reached record levels, with more than half a million homes with planning permission waiting to be built. It revealed that

“over 1.2 million homes could be built on 23,000 sites covering more than 27,000 hectares of previously developed land.”

However, it also highlighted that despite that,

“development of the highest quality farmland has soared 1,000-fold in 10 years”.

As Tom Fyans, the interim chief executive of CPRE, said:

“You know the system is broken when hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people and families are on social housing waiting lists, many in rural areas. Meanwhile, across the country, tens of thousands of hectares of prime brownfield sites are sitting there waiting to be redeveloped.”

There is work to be done to ensure that the development that can take place on brownfield sites does indeed take place there.

The Secretary of State has said that as part of a “brownfield first” approach, Homes England, the Government’s housing and delivery arm, is spending millions on acquiring sites in urban areas to regenerate new housing, but it is no good acquiring the land if it then sits unused. It has been noted that there are often barriers to developing brownfield sites, one of which is the need for remediating works. Will the Minister outline whether she thinks the Government are doing enough to help local authorities to ensure that brownfield sites in their areas are viable for homes to be built on? Have the Government made any assessment of the amount of brownfield sites in the country that could be suitable for housing, but where significant remediation is necessary before development can take place?

Another CPRE report from 2021 pointed out that 793 applications were submitted for building on green belt land between 2009-10 and 2019-20, of which 337—just over 42%—were approved. That resulted in the building of more than 50,000 housing units on the green belt in that time, so for all the Government’s talk about protecting the green belt, it is clear much stronger protections are needed. The Government know that people care passionately about this. We need action now to make it easier for development to take place on brownfield sites and we need much stronger protection for the green belt. Without that, developers will simply carry on pushing to build on green belt sites.

With the absence of such protections, it is perhaps no wonder that developers feel emboldened when it comes to submitting applications for housing on green belt land. In my constituency, Wirral West, 61.9% of the land is green belt. It is a very beautiful part of the world and is clearly attractive to developers, given that in recent months we have seen four planning applications from Leverhulme Estates for homes on land in Barnston, Irby and Pensby. All were refused by Wirral Council last autumn, following a determined campaign against the proposals by local residents. I attended and addressed two public meetings—one at Greasby Community Centre and one outdoors in the village—in support of the many people in my constituency who oppose the destruction of the green belt. People will not forgive politicians who destroy the things that they love.

People in Wirral West value the green belt extremely highly, and they have made it very clear that they do not want to see it built on. I fully support them in this. Leverhulme Estates has appealed against Wirral Council’s decision to refuse these applications, and the appeals are now in progress. There is to be a public inquiry, which is distressing for local people, who want the local green belt to be preserved. A further application from Leverhulme Estates, for up to 240 homes in Greasby, is due to be decided by Wirral Council this evening, and the officer recommendation is to refuse that application as well. It was reported in the Wirral Globe last week that 6,000 people have signed petitions against the application, further demonstrating the strength of feeling in Wirral West, and wider Wirral, against development on the green belt. I have previously called on Leverhulme Estates to abandon its plans to build homes on the green belt in Wirral West, and I do so again.

Wirral’s local plan is currently going through its inspection process, but the plan, which was submitted to the Secretary of State in October last year, states:

“Sufficient brownfield land and opportunities exist within the urban areas of the Borough to ensure that objectively assessed housing and employment needs can be met over the plan period. The Council has therefore concluded that the exceptional circumstances to justify alterations to the Green Belt boundaries…do not exist in Wirral.”

Local people are extremely concerned about the actions of Leverhulme Estates and a series of other developers that are actively challenging that position.

Jon Trickett

Has my hon. Friend had a similar experience to ours, where the houses built on the green belt are often not accessible financially to local people? It adds insult to the injury of losing green belt land when their children or grandchildren cannot afford to live in the houses that are being built.

Margaret Greenwood

My hon. Friend points to a serious problem that we see in constituencies up and down the country. Developers want to build homes on Wirral West’s precious green belt, while local residents want to preserve it for the benefits its brings to health and wellbeing, as well as for environmental reasons. I stand with local residents in their fight to protect the green belt.

Brownfield land is not a static resource. Over time, some brownfield land leaves local authority registers as it is reused and new brownfield land enters the register as it becomes available. It continues to be a renewable resource, and every effort should be made to ensure that it is used to the greatest possible effect.

The Government should bring forward much stronger protection for the green belt as a matter of urgency. We need to see policy that drives the development of brownfield sites to build the truly affordable, zero-carbon homes the country so desperately needs.

13/02/2023
Alex Chalk – 2023 Speech at the Global Investment Summit in India

The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Minister for Defence Procurement, in Lucknow, India on 13 February 2023.

Thank you Honourable Chief Minister for that warm introduction. It is an enormous pleasure to be here in Lucknow today for the Global Investment Summit.

As some of you may know, for me personally this has felt less of a visit and more of homecoming.

Because it was here in Uttar Pradesh that I spent a formative period of my life as a young graduate, living and working as a teacher in this beautiful state and gaining experience that continues to influence me today. Yesterday I travelled to Bakshi-ka-talab for an emotional reunion with Sushma Singh and her family.

It was emotional because I formed a strong attachment to this remarkable country and its people. From the holy city of Varanasi, to the wonder of Agra. I knew then that India was destined for an extraordinary future. In the intervening two decades, India has indeed become great. But in truth, it is only just getting started.

As well as successfully holding the presidency of the G20, India’s growing economy is accelerating past others, and is already bigger than Britain’s. That trend will only continue. We don’t just acknowledge that – we admire it and we celebrate it.

Because I come here today as a representative of a new kind of British Government. The torch has truly passed to a new generation of British ministers, led by my friend and colleague, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – who has already established an excellent relationship with Modi Jee.

Because this is a generation of ministers that has studied and come of age in one of the most diverse countries on Earth. A country of pluralism, of tolerance. A country where I can tell you that this minister’s children celebrate Diwali with all the enthusiasm that they show for Christmas.

And above all, like you, a meritocracy – a country where it doesn’t matter where you’re from, it’s where you’re going that counts. And UP is certainly going places.

And when it comes to our country, the United Kingdom is more open, more outward-looking, more globalist than ever before. Global Britain is not a slogan – it is a fundamental part of our modern DNA. And it’s absolutely at the heart of why I’m so delighted to be here.

And so when I come back to Lucknow, and I see the road signs bearing that famous name, my mind does not turn principally to the past, our shared history or my own past. It turns with wonder to the extraordinary present of this mighty metropolis, and it soars on the promise of what tomorrow will surely bring.

Because we meet here in one of the fastest growing economies in India, a state of over 200m people, a hub of research and development. A state that is restless for its future – just as Britain is.

We know your ambitions Chief Minister for this state, for growing the economy this decade, for developing the infrastructure, and for establishing a defence corridor – the engine of new India’s growth. That vision is hugely exciting, and I would like our comprehensive strategic partnership to be the engine of each other’s growth.

Indeed, we stand ready to be at your side, as partners, as we hurry towards that future. And to demonstrate that commitment I am joined today by more than 30 British businesses – firms that are already partnering with Indian counterparts and stand ready to deepen and intensify that relationship. We want to achieve great things together, and today they are signing seven MOUs, committing £165m of investment into UP and generating almost a thousand jobs.

And when it comes to ties to India business is not beginning from a standing start. Since the turn of the century no G20 country has invested more in India than Britain. For its part, India is Britain’s second-biggest jobs creator.

And in Defence we see with growing clarity where our relationship can go. On land, on sea, and in the air. And even in space and cyber.

At sea, the crew of HMS Tamar’visited the Andaman and Nicobar Islands last month and exercised with the Indian Navy. Our flagship, the great carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, sailed to the Indian Ocean in 2021 and took part in our most demanding bilateral exercise to date, Exercise Konkan Shakti, conducted by all three services from both countries.

In the air, you’ll be aware of our regular joint exercise, Indradhanush, with tactics, techniques and procedures being shared between our aviators.

And on the ground, where British participation in exercise Ajeya Warrior has strengthened our interoperability and shared skills in tackling terrorism, and boosting counter-insurgency capability.

And that’s all before you factor in the extensive collaboration at an industrial level.

Whether it’s our new Defence Industry Joint Working Group – launched last year. Whether it’s our Enhanced Cyber Security Partnership. Or whether it’s the regular bilateral consultations on space technology.

And I see huge opportunities for our industries to collaborate in electric propulsion technology to power the Indian Navy, and complex weapons systems.

And to support greater defence and security collaboration the UK has issued an Open General Export Licence to India, reducing bureaucracy and shortening delivery times for defence procurement. This is our first such licence in the Indo-Pacific.

And tomorrow I look forward to emphasising to Indian defence colleagues that the UK stands ready to commit to something truly special: the largest ever transfer of jet engine technology from Britain to any other nation in our history. Technology that will give India sovereign Make-in-India intellectual capability, that will ensure India joins an exclusive club and becomes just the sixth country in the world to acquire this cutting-edge capability – and will empower India to export future fighters on India’s terms around the world.

A strong, self-reliant, resilient India, with a sovereign defence industry to match.

That’s good for India. That’s good for the region. And it’s vital for the world.

That’s because wherever you are in the world, there is a growing, inescapable feeling that our planet is become more dangerous.

Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine has shown us that the world is more connected and interdependent than ever. Rising costs, food shortages and instability are triggered across the world.

And I know I don’t need to remind this audience that China’s increasing belligerence poses systematic challenges to the international rules-based order. It threatens to undermine those values that our free nations hold to be inviolable – democracy, good governance, human rights, the rule of law. And the right of any nation to preserve its territorial integrity.

So accelerating our partnership is not a ‘nice to have’. It is a geopolitical necessity. And we need to get on with it.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak recognises that, and fired the starting gun on the latest sprint last week when he joined a meeting between India’s National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and his British counterpart Tim Barrow.

Together they framed plans to strengthen cooperation on trade, technology and defence. And I know Alan [Gemmell, HM Trade Commissioner for South Asia] is going to be speaking in a moment about the various agreements we’re set to commit to writing shortly.

We also have our Foreign Secretary, Chancellor and First Sea Lord all coming here in the coming week to further strengthen our relationship.

And I’m here in UP, because we see special opportunity in this extraordinary state of UP, and the vision you have set out for development and defence investment.

Twenty years ago, my pupils taught me:

Pardesi pardesi jaana nahi

Foreigner, don’t leave

Pardesi pardesi jaana nahi

Foreigner, don’t leave

Mujhe chhod ke, mujhe chhod ke

Leaving me behind

Pardesi pardesi jaana nahi

Foreigner, don’t leave

Mujhe chhod ke, mujhe chhod ke

Leaving me behind

Pardesi mere yaara vaada nibhana

My foreigner friend, fulfill your promise

Mujhe yaad rakhna kahin bhool na jaana

Remember me and don’t forget me

Today, the Hindi slogan that comes to mind is:

UK-UP: sAbka sat, sAbka vikAAAs.

13/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Mary Starks appointed to lead review of The Pensions Regulator [February 2023]

The press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 13 February 2023.

The review will examine how TPR is performing its role and where it can improve, providing greater efficiency and value to taxpayers.

The Department for Work and Pensions has announced the appointment of Mary Starks to lead a review of The Pensions Regulator (TPR).

This is in line with the expectation that public bodies are reviewed each Parliament. The Minister for Pensions has asked Starks to aim to deliver the report in May 2023.

Stark’s previous experience includes serving as executive member of the Board and Director of Competition and Chief Economist at the Financial Conduct Authority. She has also served as Executive Director of Ofgem, focussed on innovation, customer behaviour and safeguarding public confidence while moving towards a net zero carbon and digitalised energy system.

Minister for Pensions Laura Trott MP MBE said:

All public bodies must ensure that they are accountable and working for taxpayers.

Mary Starks has a background working in the regulatory sector and with public bodies, which will help her to deliver effective recommendations.

TPR Lead Reviewer Mary Starks said:

I am delighted to be appointed to lead this review. The Pensions Regulator plays a vital role protecting the interests of savers and ensuring employees benefit from workplace pensions.

As well as drawing on my own regulatory experience, I look forward to hearing from stakeholders from across the pensions sector and working closely with the teams at DWP and TPR.

The lead reviewer aims to identify efficiency savings of more than five percent where possible.

13/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Sara Weller CBE appointed new Chair of the Money and Pensions Service [February 2023]

The press release issued by the Department for Work and Pensions on 13 February 2023.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has announced the appointment of Sara Weller CBE as the new permanent Chair of the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS).

Sara has been serving as a non-executive board member since September 2022 and will formally take up the role of permanent Chair on 29 March 2023.

Her prior experience includes serving as Joint Managing Director of Sainsbury’s, Managing Director of Argos, and non-executive director and Responsible Business Committee Chair at Lloyds Banking Group.

Minister for Pensions, Laura Trott said:

It’s brilliant to see Sara appointed as the permanent Chair of MaPS Sara will bring a wealth of experience to this challenging but rewarding role, continuing the work of her predecessor in supporting people across the country with vital money guidance.

Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Griffith said:

I’d like to welcome Sara to her new post as Chair of MaPS, and to thank Sir Hector for his successful leadership over a number of years.

Sara’s expertise in delivering for the consumer will ensure MaPS is well geared in the years ahead – taking forward vital work enhancing the financial capability of people across the country.

Sara Weller CBE, said:

I am delighted to have been appointed as the second Chair of the MaPS, with great thanks to Sir Hector Sants for his stewardship of MaPS in its early years.

MaPS has a key role to play making impartial money guidance accessible to all, particularly so at the moment given the current economic challenges, and I look forward to working closely with our many partners, to help people right across the country feel more able to manage their money.

Outgoing Chair of MaPS, Sir Hector Sants said:

I warmly welcome the appointment of Sara as my successor. In her current role, as a non-executive, she has already made a significant contribution to the work of MaPS.

MaPS is an arm’s-length body of the DWP and provides free and impartial MaPS guidance across the UK, as well as debt advice in England. In providing these services it supports the policy delivery of DWP and HM Treasury.

The appointment was made following an open competition regulated by The Office for the Commissioner of Public Appointments. Sara will serve as Chair of MaPS for five years until 28 March 2028.

13/02/2023
Theresa Villiers – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

The speech made by Theresa Villiers, the Conservative MP for Chipping Barnet, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate. It is an honour to follow the powerful speech from the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett).

I am delighted to be taking part in this debate as the Member of Parliament for a constituency that contains substantial amounts of green belt land. I know how hugely my Chipping Barnet constituents value the breathing space that green belt gives them. It has kept urban sprawl at bay for more than 70 years, but excessive housebuilding targets have been making it harder and harder for councils to turn down bad development proposals. In a number of areas, that is leading to loss of greenfield and green belt land around the country, and to increasing pressure to urbanise the suburbs.

I was very struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Hemsworth on the progressive blurring of the gaps between different communities and communities being merged together, and the crucial importance of giving people access to the countryside on their doorstop. For all those reasons, green belt protections are crucial.

Even where councils refuse planning applications, there is a risk that a planning inspector will overturn the decision on the basis that the development is needed to meet the centrally set, top-down housebuilding target. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, that is why I tabled new clause 21 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which was signed by 60 Members of the House. In response, the Secretary of State brought forward significant concessions to rebalance the planning system to give local communities greater control over what is built in their neighbourhood. That is very welcome. It is being taken forward in the consultation now under way on the new national planning policy framework, but the battle is by no means over because the extent to which the compromise delivers real change depends on how it is implemented. It depends on that consultation.

Let me give an example. I very much welcome the new NPPF footnote 30, which promises that brownfield development will be prioritised over greenfield, but even on brownfield sites, it is crucial to respect factors like local character and density. “Brownfield first” must not mean brownfield free-for-all. We need more detail on how the “brownfield first” approach will be delivered in practice, including how the new developer levy will be used to promote it.

I very much welcome the proposal that councils will no longer be required to review green belt boundaries, even where doing so would be the only way to meet the centrally determined target. I also welcome the crucial concession that if meeting a top-down target would involve building at densities significantly out of character with the area, a lower target can be set in the local plan. Wording needs to be added to the new NPPF to make it clear that a substantial proportion of councils are likely to be able to benefit from that new flexibility and to depart from the target determined by the standard method. We also need additional wording in the NPPF to give more strength and clarity to what will be considered sufficiently “significantly out of character” to justify lowering the target, and how councils will be able to satisfy the test for establishing it.

As the Better Planning Coalition says, the whole target- setting process should focus on housing need, rather than housing demand. They are not the same things, and should be properly distinguished. The consultation also proposes removing the test that local plans have to be “justified”, which would be a welcome way to reduce the evidential burden councils face in establishing the exceptional circumstances that justify reducing their target. However, if that measure is to deliver the outcome promised by the Secretary of State, firm and clear instructions must be given to the Planning Inspectorate to accept local plans from councils that are based on reasonable evidence.

Scrapping the duty to co-operate was a key part of the compromise, too. The duty has created great pressure to build on green belt and greenfield areas outside our major towns and cities. Although the consultation proposes abolition, which is welcome, it envisages that the duty will be replaced by what is called an alignment policy. It would be good to hear from the Minister about this, as we need to know what that policy is if we are to be confident that the duty to co-operate is being scrapped and not simply relabelled.

Giving councils new powers to set design codes is also welcome, but design standards need to be additional to, not a substitute for, existing planning protections on matters such as green belt and greenfield density, height and character. A project that is an overdevelopment cannot be cured with high-quality design.

I would also highlight continuing concerns over national development management policies. Local development management policies provide a bulwark of defence against bad development, protecting greenfield sites and open space, constraining height or preventing loss of family homes to blocks of flats. Central control over all those policies could be deeply problematic and undermine the primacy of the local plan. Ministers say that that is not intended and that the NPPF consultation delivers on the Secretary of State’s promise to consult on NDMPs and their scope, which is welcome. However, NDMPs could still be used to rewrite the entire planning system and significantly restrict local decision making. I therefore urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to look again at this issue in debates in the other place and consider amendments that restore the primacy of the local plan in the event of a conflict with an NDMP.

Finally, I want to say a brief word about London. I welcome the indication by Ministers that the new flexibilities contained in the compromise proposals in the consultation will apply in London, but there is still an urgent need to curb the power of the Mayor of London to impose targets on the boroughs. We are the party that promised to scrap regional targets, yet they are alive and kicking in our capital city. The Mayor has used the London plan to try to load additional housing delivery obligations on to the suburbs, especially boroughs such as Barnet, which have already delivered thousands of new homes in recent years.

Crucial progress has been made as a result of the discussions between Ministers and Back Benchers on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and my new clause 21, but my long-running battle to safeguard the local environment of Chipping Barnet, which it is my honour to represent, must continue. Know this: I will fight with diligence, determination and perhaps even a little obstinacy.

13/02/2023
NEWS FROM 100 YEARS AGO : 13 February 1923

13 FEBRUARY 1923

King George V opened Parliament following the recess.

The National Liberals unanimously agreed to re-elect David Lloyd as their leader in a meeting at the House of Commons.

A by-election was called in Mitcham following the resignation of Sir Thomas Cato Worsfold who had held the seat since 1918. The by-election date was announced for 3 March 1923.

Thomas O’Higgins, the father of the Irish Cabinet member Kevin O’Higgins was assassinated by the Irregulars at his home in Stradbally.

13/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : One-stop-shops for testing deliver over 3 million potentially lifesaving checks, tests and scans [February 2023]
The press release issued by the Department of Health and Social Care on 13 February 2023.

Tens of thousands of patients across England to get quicker access to life-saving tests as 19 additional community diagnostic centres (CDCs) to open this year.
- 92 operational CDCs have carried out an additional three million, tests, checks and scans across the country as the NHS works on the biggest ever catch-up programme
- The one-stop shops are located in a range of convenient settings for patients, from shopping centres to football stadiums
Tens of thousands of patients across the country will benefit from quicker access to tests, with 19 new community diagnostic centres which will perform 1.1 million tests, checks and scans every year set to open later this year.

CDCs are central to the government’s elective recovery plan and the Prime Minister’s priority of reducing NHS waiting lists to tackle the backlogs in the NHS and social care, providing additional capacity for potentially lifesaving tests including cancer screening.

New data shows 92 operational CDCs have already significantly bolstered NHS capacity as part of the most ambitious catch-up plan in NHS history, delivering an additional three million checks since the programme started in in July 2021, helping patients to get the diagnosis they need as quickly as possible so they can access the treatment they need where and when they need it.

The one-stop shops, backed by £2.3 billion in government funding, are based in convenient locations such as shopping centres and football stadiums allowing people to access tests more quickly.

The CDCs house a range of equipment including MRI, CT, X-ray and ultrasound scanners and offer services including blood tests or heart rhythm and blood pressure monitoring.

The 19 approved new centres will be rolled out across the country, including Milton Keynes, Nottingham and Dorset. Once referred by a GP, pharmacist or hospital, patients can access CDCs in their local area to get any concerning symptoms checked out.

Health and Social Care Secretary Steve Barclay said:

Rapid diagnosis offers reassurance to patients, reduces waiting lists, and, crucially, saves lives.

CDCs have been fundamental to this effort, delivering over 3 million extra tests which are helping to diagnose conditions from cancer to lung disease more quickly across the country.

The new centres will take us even further, utilising cutting-edge MRI, CT and X-ray machine to transform the way we deliver care closer to people’s homes helping tens of thousands of people.

NHS National Director of Elective Recovery, Sir James Mackey, said:

The NHS’s ambitious elective recovery plan, published just over a year ago, had these innovative ‘one stop shops’ at its heart. Since then they have played a key role in helping us virtually eliminate the number of people waiting more than two years for treatment and keeping the NHS on track to do the same for people waiting over 18 months by the end of April, with the centres – often based in convenient places such as in shopping centres, high streets and community hospitals – now having delivered an incredible 3 million tests and checks.

These 19 new centres will boost access for tens of thousands more patients and build on the great work of NHS staff in recovering services, helping the NHS deliver an extra 9 million tests a year by 2025 – an increase in capacity of more than a quarter on pre-pandemic levels.

Once fully operational, the new CDCs will plan to deliver over 1.1 million tests, checks and scans a year.

The facilities will take the total of approved CDCs – including those that are already operational and those still set to be rolled out – to 143. This is over 80% of the government’s ambition to roll out up to 160 centres across the country by 2025 to perform up to 9 million additional tests a year.

Since the first of these CDCs opened they have already played a valuable role in helping the NHS to reduce the backlogs, and in November 2022 CDCs delivered approximately 5% of all diagnostic activity.

Just over a year ago, the government and NHS set out the Elective Recovery Plan to recover NHS services and give patients greater control over their own health. Significant progress has since been made – with healthcare workers virtually eliminating the longest waits for treatment and cutting 18-month waits by more than 50%.

These new CDCs will build on this effort, ensuring that patients get access to the best medical advice when and where they need it while tackling healthcare disparities across the country.

Dozens of new surgical spaces are also being created to bring down waiting times. An estimated 780,000 additional surgeries and outpatient appointments will be provided at 37 new surgical hubs, 10 expanded existing hubs and 81 new theatres.

The government has also set up an Elective Recovery Taskforce to unlock spare capacity in the independent sector to tackle the backlogs. It is made up of academics and experts from the NHS and independent sector, who will help deliver on the remaining targets in the Elective Recovery Plan – such as virtually eliminating 18-month waits by April 2023 and waits of longer than a year by March 2025.

Notes to editors
- 12 of the new facilities are spoke sites, which deliver more diagnostic services in addition to a standard CDC.
- They can use commercial estate, or existing non-acute NHS estate such as community health care settings.
The full list of approved CDCs is as follows:
- North Bedfordshire CDC
- North Bedfordshire (Lloyds Court) – spoke
- North Bedfordshire CDC (Whitehouse Health Centre) – spoke
- Thurrock CDC (Braintree) – spoke
- Queen Mary’s Hospital Roehampton CDC (New Addington) – spoke
- Northamptonshire CDC
- Northamptonshire CDC (Kings Heath) – spoke
- Mansfield CDC
- Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin CDC
- ICP North CDC (Metrocentre)
- North Cumbria CDC
- Warrington and Halton CDC (Shopping City) – spoke
- Clatterbridge Diagnostics CDC (Liverpool City) – spoke
- Lymington New Forest Hospital CDC (South Hants) – spoke
- Crawley Collaborative CDC (Caterham Dene) – spoke
- Bexhill Community CDC (Hastings) – spoke
- CDC Poole@Dorset Health Village Hub
- CDC@Dorset Health Village (Weymouth) – spoke
- CDC@Dorset Health Village (Boscombe AECC) – spoke
13/02/2023
PRESS RELEASE : Energy intensive industries given £12 million boost to cut emissions and costs [February 2023]
The press release issued by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on 13 February 2023.

UK government announces further funding to help businesses clean up industrial processes and improve energy efficiency.
- £12.4 million government funding is helping some of the most polluting industries find new ways to reduce their carbon emissions and energy bills
- funding has supported the deployment of a range of new technologies, from heat pumps to hydrogen ready equipment, to help businesses cut fossil fuel use and improve energy efficiency
- investment is helping to future-proof vital British industries in the transition to a lower carbon economy
Businesses across the UK will benefit from a share of more than £12 million government funding to help energy-intensive industries cut their carbon emissions and energy costs.

The funding for the 22 winning projects will help businesses across England, Wales and Northern Ireland clean up their industrial processes and improve their energy efficiency – benefiting industries including pharmaceuticals, steel, paper, and food and drink.

This £12.4 million funding was awarded as part of the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund (IETF), which has awarded grants to British projects across the country to increase the energy efficiency of their industrial processes, from car manufacturing to steel production and food processing.

The winning bids include sustainably harvesting food in Carmarthenshire, Wales, through a new air source heat pump system, capturing waste heat to dry, heat, crush and grind materials for roadmaking in South Yorkshire and using revolutionary high temperature heat pumps to reduce the energy needed to heat and cool cheese, reducing emissions in dairy farms across the Midlands.

It is estimated that industry is currently responsible for producing 16% of the UK’s emissions and will need to cut emissions by two thirds by 2035 in order for the UK to achieve its net zero target.

Today’s funding will play a crucial role in helping to clean up big-emitting industries as part of the UK’s green industrial revolution – decarbonising their industrial processes and reducing their reliance on expensive fossil fuels, such as gas. This means businesses will not only reduce their environmental impact, but also save on their energy bills and safeguard thousands of British jobs.

Graham Stuart, Minister at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero said:

Boosting the energy efficiency of industrial processes is a critical step not only in our transition to a lower-carbon economy, but also by helping businesses to cut their energy costs and protect valuable British jobs.

That’s why the government has stepped in once again to support energy intensive industries, with a fresh funding round to unleash the next generation of green innovators who are re-shaping the way technology can reduce carbon emissions.

So far, £34.8 million of funding has been awarded through the Industrial Energy Transformation Fund, which was first launched in June 2020.

Today’s winners

Greener food

One of the biggest food companies in Europe, Dunbia, based in Carmarthenshire, Wales, has been awarded funds to upgrade its heating system from a gas oil fired steam boiler to an air source heat pump that is powered by renewably sourced electricity. This allows the company to harvest edible products and process the food with hot water washing, through a sustainable and energy efficient thermal supply system, reducing carbon emissions each year.

Sustainable roads

Harsco Environmental’s SteelPhalt plant, based in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, has been developing and manufacturing high performance tarmac products for the UK roadmaking industry since the 1960s. This energy intensive process of drying, heating, crushing, grinding, conveying currently utilises large volumes of natural gas, gas oil and electricity from the grid, but thanks to government funding, the company is investigating ways to capture the waste heat in the exhaust gases and transform it into electrical power, reducing the fuel demand of the road burners and supporting manufacturing in the local area.

Lighter, safer vehicles

Autotech Engineering / Gestamp is a multinational based in Newton Aycliffe, County Durham, specialising in the design, development and manufacture of metals for lighter and safer vehicles. Whereby high-tonnage presses of flat metal sheets typically loses lots of energy through heat and noise, IETF has helped to fund the SERPENT project which is actively capturing and reusing this lost energy. With a reduction of almost 10% already seen in peak power usage during tool changeover, this funding is helping to lower energy consumption and the environmental impact of critical car manufacturing.

Say cheese

The Long Clawson Dairy has been producing cheese for over a century, running over 31 farms in the Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire areas. The production of cheese is an energy intensive process involving both heating and cooling activities. Through IETF funding, the company has created a new thermal storage system, using revolutionary high temperature heat pumps to reduce overall energy by 27% and saving 34% carbon emissions, with the ambition of moving to a purely electrically powered in the long term.

Today’s announcement builds on the wide-ranging support that is available to energy-intensive industries. The UK government recognises that businesses are feeling the impact of high global energy prices, including steel producers, which is why the Energy Bill Relief Scheme was launched to bring down costs. This is in addition to more than £800 million of support the government has provided since 2013 to help industrial sectors with energy costs, with many businesses able to bid into government competitive funds worth more than £1.5 billion to support them going green, cutting emissions and becoming more energy efficient.

Niall Browne, CEO, Dunbia (UK), said:

Dunbia (UK), through its parent company Dawn Meats, was the first European beef and lamb processor to make a commitment to the Science Based Targets Initiative. We have been working for more than 10 years to reduce emissions internally and more widely across our supply chain and recognise the urgency to adopt even more aggressive measures to reduce emissions.

We welcome this opportunity to work with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to further improve our energy efficiency and cut our carbon emissions.

A Harsco Metalscompany spokesperson said:

Harsco has welcomed the IETF grant offer from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to continue its journey to help continue our commitment to innovation and sustainability. With this IETF feasibility funding grant, we have been able to investigate how we can recover heat from our asphalt plant to optimise our use of energy and reduce our carbon footprint.

Phil Potter, the SERPENT Project Manager, said:

The SERPENT feasibility study was a high-risk technology project not aligned with Gestamp’s core business activities and would not be completed without IETF support and funding. We have been successful in demonstrating feasibility and initial results look extremely promising with a reduction of almost 10% seen in peak power usage during tool changeover.

We have yet to process that data and analyse the economic viability but we have already demonstrated that this approach improves manufacturing energy efficiency to reduce waste and carbon footprint and support our drive to Net Zero with no impact on press performance.

Iain Grant, Operations Director, Long Clawson Dairy, said:

The production of our Stilton cheese is an energy intensive process involving both heating and cooling activities. With the investment in this project, it has enabled the Dairy to take a more cost-effective approach to energy consumption, alongside a clear carbon emission reduction. This is a substantial investment for a business of our size and would not have been possible without the support of the IETF grant funding.
13/02/2023
Jon Trickett – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

The speech made by Jon Trickett, the Labour MP for Hemsworth, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

I think it is the second time this week that you have guided us through a Westminster Hall debate that I have attended, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate and on her comments, which resonated with some of the problems we face in my area.

Obviously the country has a housing problem as our population increases and household size falls, but it seems to me that, as the right hon. Lady just said, a large amount of brownfield land in the country remains undeveloped. There are also large numbers of planning consents in land banks held by developers that are sitting on their assets and allowing them to grow while seeking further planning consents, on which they will probably sit as well.

It is time to think carefully about our green belt. I represent a rural community of 23 separate villages. It is important for Members who represent urban communities to understand the importance of the independence of a local community, its local identity and local culture. Ribbon development, which gradually takes one field, then another and then another, results in the bringing together of communities that historically were often rivals, or certainly have different identities that they want to retain.

Take the village that I live in, which is a Quaker village in a mining community. We are now two fields away from Pontefract. If we go back far enough—back to the civil war—we stood for Parliament and Pontefract stood for the Crown. That is some time in the past now, but we get the point. I can look from the top of our village down into Pontefract; it is creeping closer and closer, and there are plans to develop more of those fields. The village I live in is a rural community, with its own identity. We do not want to be part of Pontefract, and the same applies to all the other 22 villages that I represent.

At the present time, we have three developments, all in the green belt and all for housing. I want to say two things about that: first, it is lazy for planners to simply draw lines on maps that look tidy without first having thought about the social, economic and environmental consequences. Secondly, to some extent, it is greedy of developers to want green-belt land, which is often easier to develop than brownfield land, particularly in a mining community such as mine where much of the brownfield land has been polluted and needs to be cleaned up. There are three sites in my constituency, all in the green belt; a lot of people want to speak, so I am not going to go into detail, but Springvale Rise, Highfield Road and Huntwick Grange are all under threat of development at the moment.

The first thing to say about my constituency is that these villages were mining communities. The coal was taken out by rail, so roads that would carry large amounts of traffic were never built, because people lived in the village where they worked, and they went to the local pub, club, football club or whatever social activity, and to the local school. Our roads are not built to carry the amount of traffic that is being generated by increasing numbers of vehicles, particularly now that there is no work in our communities either, but the highways engineers seem prepared to approve almost anything as long as it is going to deliver housing targets that have been imposed from above.

I was so pleased to hear our leader, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), say that he is going to bring back control for local communities, and I think some rhetoric about the same principle has been heard from the Government as well. If we are going to develop villages that need development, that should be done from the bottom up, not from the top down—that is my central point. Green-belt incursions should be a last resort, not the easy resort. I am asking for a presumption against green-belt land and in favour of brownfield land, and I think the Government have said that there will be one.

Does the Minister have time to reply, or else to write to us, about the following point? The Government, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made statements about preferring brownfield development, and a “Dear colleague” letter has come from the Secretary of State that indicates—it uses the present tense, rather than the future tense—that he has issued orders about preferring to move away from green-belt development. Now, an inspector is looking at our local authority’s plans, and I have spoken at those hearings. That inspector started her inspection prior to the new legislation that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has referred to, and prior to the issuing of that “Dear colleague” letter and, apparently, some changes to the way in which the planning frameworks operate. She is unclear whether she will be applying the new rules as they come into place, or whether she is now obliged to work according to rules that are no longer extant, or will no longer be very shortly. Some guidance on that question would be helpful.

The green belt is very important. I want to focus on one single aspect of it, or maybe two, because other Members will develop other arguments in favour of it. First, I represent many old miners. If a person lives in poverty and perhaps has a bad chest, as many of those old men do, they should not be deprived of access to the countryside, but the more we build up, the fewer amenities will be available. That is what is happening throughout all the villages I represent, every one of which was a mining village. The loss of amenities matters a lot: they should be not for just the middle classes, but for everybody, and yet we are seeing incursions that I think are a disgrace.

The main point that I want to finish on—it will take me one or two seconds—is that there is no obligation on planners, developers, councils or anybody else to do an analysis of the ecological impact of a development before it has been approved. In my view, that is completely wrong.

We have one development that could be 4,000 or 5,000 houses, if they get away with it. I commissioned, because nobody else did, an ecological survey by the reputable West Yorkshire Ecological Service. That survey discovered on the site to be developed 26 or 28 separate species of birds, mammals or other forms of life that are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or birds that are on the Red List. Nobody had done that work, yet all of these species are protected, as far as I can see. There ought to be no development that destroys their habitats, yet that is what is being threatened.

It is a curious situation, because there is legal protection, but no attempt was made to identify which species were threatened by the development. It seems to me that the Minister could helpfully go away to the Department and discuss that point. Every time we build on green belt, rare species of flora and fauna are threatened. The land in our case has never been developed; it is ancient woodland that has never been touched, ever, but is is now under threat from the development at Huntwick Grange in Featherstone. Will the Minister reflect on the ecological impact?

Only a couple of weeks ago, when the United Nations discussed biodiversity, the Secretary-General, in a very striking phase, said that humanity is in danger of becoming

“a weapon of mass extinction.”

What are we doing? We are building on sites where there are species that are under threat, and that may well become extinct in due course. Some species now have a very fragile hold on existence. Can we really say that our planning policies should just ignore threats to our biodiversity? I think not.

12/02/2023
Wendy Morton – 2023 Statement on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

The statement made by Wendy Morton, the Conservative MP for Aldridge-Brownhills, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of brownfield development and protecting the green belt.

I thank right hon. and hon. Members, from both sides of the House, for being here today to support my debate. I appreciate that this is a Thursday afternoon just before a recess, and by-elections are going on across the country. I am sure that Members have many pressing commitments in their diary, so I am impressed by the number of colleagues here to support me today. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her recent appointment to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; I am pretty certain that she knows a little bit about the topic that I will be speaking to today.

It gives me great pleasure to open this debate on our green belt. The national planning policy framework states:

“The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.”

I very much hope that that is the case. The recent new clause 21 to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—so ably put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who is with us today in Westminster Hall, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), who is unable to be with us today, to strengthen the green belt’s protection against speculative development—would certainly help the Government with that stated objective.

However, CPRE, the countryside charity, rightly identifies that

“the Green Belt has never before faced such serious threat as large sections of land disappear under new developments.”

It is worth remembering the purpose of the green belt in our communities. It serves five purposes: to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Despite the fact that we have those protections in place, however, they too often count for very little with developers who seek to drive a coach and horses through planning policies to take what is the easy answer for them but the unpalatable option for so many of our constituents.

In my own constituency in the west midlands, we were previously part of a consortium with three neighbouring local authorities to produce our local plan, known as the “Black Country Plan”. It proposed, across the borough of Walsall, a staggering 7,100 homes, of which 5,500 were proposed for my constituency of Aldridge-Brownhills, primarily on green-belt sites. Nearly every one of the proposed sites broke the central link of one of the five purposes of our green belt—that is, to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. Indeed, one of the central themes throughout the consultation process, which came up time and again from my constituents, was their objection to having our community subsumed to become a suburb of a Greater Birmingham. After the first round of consultation on the proposed plan, which more than 7,000 households from my constituency opposed, the answer, at stage 2 of the process, was not to take on board the comments of constituents such as mine in Aldridge-Brownhills; it was to come back with more proposals for yet more housing on even more green-belt sites.

However, now that the Black Country consortium has been dissolved, new clause 21 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would help Walsall Council and the leadership, under Conservative Councillor Mike Bird, to forge a new local plan, which I believe could have a primary focus on “brownfield first”—brownfield development being prioritised over green-belt development.

I emphasise that those of us who argue for greater protection of our precious green belt are not and should not be simply labelled as nimbys. We are not. Nor is it the case that somehow I simply want to push the proposed housing into someone else’s constituency. I do not. What I want is for us to be ambitious and to be a regeneration generation.

We all recognise that we desperately need to see more homes come on stream faster and in larger numbers, but what types of homes do we as a nation need? I argue that they must include starter homes to allow younger people the same opportunity that my husband and I had in our 20s—I remember the joy of getting the keys to our first home. All too often, however, those are not the homes that developers want to build, particularly in proposals for the green belt. Indeed, speculative developer plans in a development brief for one green-belt site in Aldridge-Brownhills proposed to build four and five-bedroom houses in a location where average house prices are between 51% and 110% higher than the national average spend of a first-time buyer, which stands at just over £200,000.

The race to ensure that the next generation have the same opportunities will not be solved by concreting over Britain’s green and pleasant land. If we simply accept the argument that supply shortage is the principal reason for advocating green-belt development, we will walk into the developers’ trap. Building on inappropriate sites, with no infrastructure plan to support development in areas where there is all too often a shortage of school places and GP provision already, does not add to the existing community cohesion; in fact, it risks creating greater community tensions.

Given that we now have the capacity to build 1.2 million new homes on brownfield sites in England, surely they should be the first port of call for any house building programme. The Government are to be congratulated on continued initiatives such as the brownfield land release fund, which will help us to introduce a realistic house building programme on brownfield sites. The fund has allowed regions such as mine, under the stewardship of Mayor Andy Street, to ensure that we are remediating brownfield sites and operating a “brownfield first” approach across the west midlands and the Black Country. I place on record my thanks to the Minister’s predecessor in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for successfully overseeing a further round of that important funding, and I now look to the Minister to pick up the baton and lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ahead of the Budget on 15 March, for further resources to advance the opportunities for more local authorities to apply for, and take advantage of, the scheme. She knows the west midlands very well, so she knows that we can and do deliver, and we want to do more.

However, in addition to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill and initiatives such as the brownfield land release fund, the imminent changes to the national planning policy framework need to be used as an opportunity to strengthen protections for our green belt. I hope that we will institute the prioritisation of brownfield land over greenfield land in the changes that are due to be brought forward to the NPPF. Like CPRE, I hope that they will include a firm presumption against giving planning permission for development on additional greenfield sites, compared with those already in the plan. Greenfield sites should be allocated in local plans only where sites are primarily affordable homes for local needs, or where it can be shown that as much as possible is already being made of brownfield land, particularly by providing more housing in towns and city centres.

The NPPF also needs to change to require that all developments have diverse housing tenures and types. As I mentioned previously, a proposed development in my constituency has exclusively focused on large four and five-bedroom properties, offering no hope or opportunity to young families and young people. The infrastructure levy should be subject to change, too, to reflect the high cost of greenfield development to local communities and its impact on them, although brownfield redevelopment should still be required to make a contribution to affordable housing targets. We also need to provide local communities with stronger mechanisms to bring forward brownfield land as a source of land supply, such as increased compulsory purchase powers.

There will always be naysayers who tell us that brownfield land will not provide sufficient land to meet housing need and that the loss of brownfield sites for housing purposes will lead to the loss of land that could be used for employment purposes. However, we need to recognise that areas such as the Black Country and the west midlands—land on which heavy industry once stood—are unlikely to be returned to widespread employment use. If we are to be the regeneration generation, we need developers and our wider construction professionals to pioneer new communities that will offer a mix of employment and housing. In fact, a large part of any revival of our town centres and high streets surely can be achieved only if we accept the need for more designated housing in them to provide new and in-built footfall.

There is no doubt that when the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill went to the other place, it did so in a far better state. However, I fear that the concessions that were won through the acceptance of new clause 21 can be easily undermined if powers under the NPPF are not strengthened. We need to see an end to the five-year land supply obligation and an end to the scandal of land banking. We need further Government support with the cost of land remediation through the brownfield fund and the brownfield land release fund, and that needs to be adequately resourced.

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will agree that the best developments are those that work with, not against, local communities. The right type of planning regulation that unlocks the power of local communities and economic growth should not be seen as incompatible with protecting our environment and precious green belt. In the same way, our whole debate about the green belt should not be seen through the lens of “green belt good” and “house building bad” —or vice versa.

To conclude, we need to draw on our resources to solve the failure of house building. That means seeking to use our resources to build 1.2 million homes on brownfield sites first. “Brownfield first” should be our development watchwords. Get this wrong, and our green belt will be lost forever, which would be a travesty for future generations, but get this right, and we can truly be the regeneration generation.

12/02/2023