Proceeding contribution from Matthew Pennycook (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 9 June 2025. It occurred during Debate on bill on Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
The simple answer is no, I would not characterise the OEP’s advice as “spurious”, but I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as such. The OEP is not saying that the Bill is a “cash to trash” model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 768 c687
- Session
- 2024-26
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Birds Agriculture Construction Biodiversity Allotments Housing Finance Fees and charges Flood control Environment protection Energy supply Infrastructure Land drainage Landfill Land use Local government Planning permission Planning Public consultation Playgrounds Standards Social rented housing Rivers Tree planting Solar power Nationally significant infrastructure projects Natural England Charging points Bricks Nature Restoration Fund Land banking
- Legislation
- Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on hansard.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-09-05 23:03:08 +0100
- URI
- http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-06-09/25060955000331
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-06-09/25060955000331
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Commons/2025-06-09/25060955000331