Letter to Secretary of State for Housing: The Planning and Infrastructure Bill and NPPF

Dear Secretary of State,

I am writing to raise urgent concerns about the recent Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which passed its Third Reading on 10 June 2025, and the accompanying changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that are already having a serious impact on my constituency of Surrey Heath.

Residents across the constituency are deeply concerned about the introduction of Grey Belt classifications within existing Green Belt areas. This policy has caused confusion and is counterintuitive, as it has reduced the number of affordable homes being built in areas such as Windlesham. Many fear it will erode long-standing protections, encourage speculative development and weaken public trust in the planning system.

These concerns are compounded by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and its implications for housing targets and infrastructure delivery. Surrey Heath is among the most geographically constrained areas in the South East. Nearly three quarters of the borough faces restrictions: 44 per cent is Green Belt, 23 per cent lies within the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area, and significant tracts are owned by the Ministry of Defence. Once buffer zones and ecological protections are implemented, almost half of the constituency is effectively excluded from potential development, without any corresponding adjustment to housing delivery expectations.

In this context, the Government’s revised housing target of 684 homes per year is wholly unrealistic, representing a 113% increase. Meeting it would require building on protected or environmentally sensitive land, undermining both village character and ecological integrity. This uplift has also reduced Surrey Heath Borough Council’s five-year land supply from over seven years to barely three, leaving the area vulnerable to speculative development. The recent approval of 135 homes at Grove End in Bagshot, following Grey Belt reclassification, sets a worrying precedent that risks the gradual merging of once distinct villages.

Infrastructure must not be treated as an afterthought. Communities such as Camberley, Bagshot, Lightwater, Bisley, Normandy and Pirbright already face strain on roads, schools, health services and drainage systems. The A322, our main arterial route, is chronically congested, yet the Bill provides no credible mechanism to ensure infrastructure is delivered before new development. Without that guarantee, expansion is unsustainable.

In Normandy, proposals for approximately 950 new homes would fundamentally alter the village’s character and add thousands of vehicles to already pressured rural roads. Development of this scale requires significant investment in transport, drainage and healthcare infrastructure before approval can be responsibly considered.

The reality for Surrey Heath is clear: land is scarce, infrastructure is overstretched, and communities cannot absorb unrealistic housing targets. Development must be infrastructure led, environmentally responsible and locally accountable, or it will cause long-term harm to both people and the sense of place.

I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or your frontbench colleagues to discuss how a more balanced and sustainable approach to housing and planning can be achieved in Surrey Heath constituency.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,

Dr Al Pinkerton MP