Commons Presses Heritage Reuse, Changing Places Amid NPPF Delay

High-Level Summary

Three items were considered: a Select Committee statement on protecting built heritage; a Backbench Business debate on changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); and a debate on capital funding for Changing Places toilets. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee emphasised reuse of historic buildings, planning and VAT barriers, support for places of worship, and sector skills. Members then debated NPPF issues including flood risk, green/grey belt policy, housing targets, infrastructure and local democracy; the Minister said the final framework could not be published before the summer recess and would follow “in due course”. A cross-party debate urged renewed capital support for Changing Places toilets; the Minister highlighted prior funding, building regulations and local decision making, and undertook to engage across Government.

Detailed Summary

Select Committee statement: Protecting built heritage (Culture, Media and Sport Committee)

Presenting the Committee’s third report, Jo Platt argued that historic buildings are assets for future prosperity and should be central to regeneration, stating, “Heritage should not be viewed as a constraint on growth; it should be recognised as an enabler of growth”. She cited scope to convert underused heritage for housing—“Historic England estimates that up to 670,000 homes could be created through the reuse of vacant or underused historic buildings”—and recommended a national “heritage‑to‑housing” approach. She outlined concerns about the planning system—“lengthy waits for planning and listed building consent can discourage investment”—and called for strengthened local conservation capacity and earlier engagement. Financial barriers included VAT, as “owners of listed buildings are still required to pay VAT at 20% on construction and alteration works”, which the report urges the Government to review. On places of worship, she warned of funding changes creating “a real risk that places of worship of exceptional historic and architectural significance could be disadvantaged”. Skills shortages were highlighted, with “an urgent need to attract and train the next generation”.

In questions, Members pressed local roles and practical mechanisms. Platt said approaches must be tailored, as “every place will be different”, backed convening funders and partners—“Getting everyone around the table to make sure that funding goes where it is needed is an important factor”—and supported diverse reuse including hospitality, noting, “the best way to protect many historic buildings is to ensure that they remain occupied, economically viable and actively used”. She agreed the report links heritage to cultural use and, on places of worship, cautioned that the new fund “prioritises areas in most need” but could disadvantage significant churches, urging support “at least as generous under the new scheme as under the old one”. No decision was sought; the statement informed the House. Next steps: not stated in the transcript.

Backbench Business: National Planning Policy Framework

Opening the debate, Tessa Munt raised flood‑risk concerns after a High Court judgment permitting 190 homes in Yatton “in flood zone 3a”, noting the judge said homeowners at risk would have “sufficient time to vacate their houses”. She warned of insurance issues as Flood Re “comes to an end in 2039” and “homes built after 2009 are not covered”, and argued that raising site levels would displace water since “floodwater has to go somewhere”. Citing the Association of British Insurers’ concerns about bypassing the sequential test and data that 6.3 million homes face flood risk, she urged mandating sustainable drainage (implementing schedule 3 to the 2010 Act). She also questioned housing targets—“Somerset council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years”—and emphasised food security: “Food security is national security”.

Contributors challenged the NPPF’s operation, green/grey belt policy, and local consent. Chris Hinchliff argued the system is “beyond reform” and that the presumption functions as “a passport to permission”. John Martin McDonnell warned that “the concept of grey belt means that developers are now turning green belt into grey belt by dumping, cutting down trees and despoiling the area”. Damian Hinds welcomed tougher weight against intentional unauthorised development but sought firmer limits, proposing that “wilfully ignoring planning consent requirements will not result in retrospective planning permissions being granted”, raised rural housing formula pressures and water supply constraints—“The Environment Agency has stopped the extension of the abstraction licence at Greywell Fen”—and cautioned against applying urban‑style densities to rural stations as “wholly inappropriate for market towns like Alton… and rural villages like Bentley or Rowland’s Castle”. Others cited environmental standards, infrastructure and affordability gaps, including calls that the draft “fails to commit to new homes being zero-carbon”, criticism that the standard method is “a terrible way to assess local housing need”, and claims that targets are shifted from cities to rural areas—e.g. reductions “in London” and increases “in the New Forest”.

Responding, the Minister (Matthew Pennycook) outlined 2024 updates and a 2025 draft overhaul, including “new decision‑making policies… [to] override conflicting policies in local plans from day one” and “in‑principle support for suitable proposals… around well‑connected train stations… including on green‑belt land”. He said a final framework could not be issued before recess—“it has not been possible to… publish the final framework before the summer recess”—and insisted, “we have not weakened the sequential test”, adding that the presumption’s default support would be disapplied for, among others, “parks and open space or land identified for flood risk management”. On grey belt, he said its definition is clear and cannot “fundamentally undermine the policies of the green belt across the wider plan area”, and that station policies add material weight but “do not grant automatic permission”. Outcome: debate concluded with the motion lapsing under Standing Orders—“Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”. Next steps: Government to publish the final NPPF “in due course”.

Changing Places toilets: capital funding

Daniel Francis sought renewed capital support to expand and upgrade Changing Places toilets for people with profound disabilities. He noted there are “2,665” registered facilities and that growth has slowed since “The fund closed in March 2025”, calling “for a form of funding, through the reintroduction of a capital grant”. He proposed an official app, better access controls due to vandalism and radar key misuse, and highlighted lived‑experience evidence—“Without Changing Places we’re trapped at home”—as well as gaps in hospitals, noting that nationally “no assessment has been made”.

Cross‑party contributions endorsed expanding provision. Rishi Sunak recounted initiating building‑regulation changes and a “£30 million Changing Places fund” as Chancellor, while recognising “more than 2,500 Changing Places are now installed” yet “the job is not done”. Members cited local gaps, e.g., Broxtowe has “only two such facilities”, and Northern Ireland hospitals where “four out of five… still have no registered Changing Places facilities”. The Minister (Nesil Caliskan) pointed to prior central support—“delivered over £30 million for the Changing Places toilets programme… [supporting] well over 400 new… facilities”—but said local funding decisions now rest with councils, acknowledging “there has clearly been a reduction in the speed of provision across the country”. She agreed to engage with the consortium and across Departments—“I am happy to meet with the consortium myself”—and said of hospital gaps, “I was shocked to hear that so many NHS hospitals do not have the provision” and would “speak to colleagues”. Outcome: the House agreed the motion—“Question put and agreed to”. Next steps: Ministerial engagement and encouragement of local provision; no new central fund announced.