This week, on behalf of my constituents, I submitted my consultation response to the Government on the proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.
The reality is most people have never heard of this Framework, otherwise known as the NPPF. However, this document affects nearly everything in daily life. It tells us where we can build houses and businesses, what we can build, and how we can build.
My view is that for too long this document has not been fit for purpose. We did see important changes to the NPPF during the last government, who changed it to place more emphasis on our neighbourhood plans and strengthened obligations for cities to build more.
In my response, I set out the case for the NPPF to go further. It cannot be right that for years rural West Sussex has taken a disproportionate amount of new houses, yet a mega city like London fails to meet its planning targets with a shortfall of 500,000 homes. London has a near 24/7 transport infrastructure with plenty of hospitals, sewers, and schools. I firmly believe that it, and other cities, must densify — building upwards, not outwards — before our pristine countryside, which is objectively not suited to large scale house building, is lost to further development.
Like many, I have been immensely disappointed with the emerging catalogue of stories in relation to Labour MPs taking donations for things like personal clothes, glasses, expensive holidays and lavish hospitality - and the failure to properly and transparently declare them. It gives everyone in Westminster a bad name and erodes trust. When I wonder why MPs get themselves into these situations, I reflect on how few have deep experience of life outside of politics from fields such as business or military service where managing conflicts of interest - or just not taking what in other walks of life might be regarded as a bribe - is second nature. I would always urge people who have built businesses or enterprises with real experience to put themselves forward for public service.
